Letters to the Editor
JM Walker
Published Letters: 205 Editor's Choice: 4
-
My Point
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for illustrating further how the Right doesn't understand what science is. We are not decrying Paglia and other Climate Change deniers because they don't "Toe the party line", we decry them because they are ignoring scientific concensus.
And thank you for illustrating my point. 1) I never denied global warming wasn't happening. 2) In my twelve years of registered voting, the closest I've come to voting for anyone on the Right was a purely symbolic vote cast for a Libertarian challenger in a local Oregon election, which the Democratic candidate won by a landslide. But I support Camille's choice to be skeptical, and apparently that makes me a Rightist. I'm with you or I'm against you, eh?
The concensus or agreement among scientists worldwide is that climate change is happening and it is because of human activity.
No, the agreement among scientists worldwide is that climate change is happening and it is partly because of human activity. Nobody with his or her head out of the sand doubts that global warming is happening or that humans don't contribute. That is not the issue.
This is not some political idea or partisan talking point.
My comments regarding Camille and the kneejerk partisan backlash had nothing to do with global warming really. The Q&A did address other issues. However, since you've brought it up, what prevents one from accepting provisional likelihood of a theory while maintaining a healthy scientific skepticism?
-
Lynx
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's nothing preventing you. You can be wrong all you like. What should stop you? When it isn't healthy.
Please, point out which of the following statements I made about global warming is wrong.
1) Global warming is happening
2) Global warming is partially attributed to human influence
You might not be a "Rightist", but by supporting her right to speak as an authority in matters where she hasn't the faintest clue, you're supporting the Right. You are correct, I have no idea what supposed political strain you adhere to. I simply see what you're supporting here and the Right would approve.
You fail at reading comprehension. My original comments regarding the hypocrisy of the "left" in castrating opinions that don't toe the dogmatic line were in no way related to Paglia's statements about global warming. I even clarified that in the letter you've now replied to. Camille's column was several pages long and addressed multiple questions, only one of which was about global warming.
Then what do you think the issue is?
The issue is that I wasn't talking about global warming. Will I need to post again further clarifying or will this suffice?
-
Curious
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have no idea what "cultish thinking" you're accusing me of. Reading scientific journals, studying and drawing the conclusion that global warming is both real and primarily caused by human activity?
Could you cite some sources and data for the suggestion that global warming is primarily caused by human activity to the exclusion of other sources/cycles. I'm curious to see the methodology driving that particular certainty.
-
Sources
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Try these to start and get yourself subscriptions to Nature, Science and Scientific American.
I subscribe to Scientific American. Nature and Science are peer review journals. They're not only above my head (I'm a layman), they're also prohibitively expensive. Thanks for the links. I'll take a look.
-
The Swiftboating of Camille Paglia
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A few people have asked in this thread, "Did Camille Paglia write the letters that she then answers?"
I think this is a fair question. In fact, it's more than fair, I think it demands a response from the Salon editors and/or Paglia herself.
I would recommend not pursuing a career in textual analysis.
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/01/23/state_of_parties/view/index2.html?show=all Daniel Helming
http://archive.salon.com/tech/letters/2002/05/31/fat_asses/index2.html Ted ("T.") DiSante
http://archive.salon.com/people/col/pagl/2000/06/09/education/index1.html Hugh Greentree
http://letters.salon.com/c1f435a178c392170e28f29fcb0a5d60/author/index.html Connor Ryan
-
Dear Joan
[Read the article: Firing Imus was the right thing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't listen to Imus. I don't really care about him or his show. I read his comments as they were posted on Broadside. I think they were sophomoric, a little dash of frat boy. I wouldn't call them racist.
In fact, I've yet to see anyone describe exactly how they're racist. That's a pretty heavy word to toss around so irresponsibly, projecting what amounts to an entire worldview onto someone based on a few thoughtless comments.
And this "ho" business. Does anybody actually still take the word literally? It's pretty common place. I hear it all the time on television, on the radio, around town. I call my friends hos. They don't become angry, because they're able to distinguish a figurative jest from a spiteful insult. I wouldn't trot out the misogyny stick and whack anyone with it because somebody called someone else a "ho," but, hey, that's me.
You and others did. It's done. Now that the chicken littles have accomplished absolutely nothing of substance except proving that the fat festering tumor of political correctness is not, in fact, in remission in this country, here's hoping your poor offended sensibilities safely scab up, heal over, and leave nary a scar.
And may that fat mutton leg of self-satisfaction you're gnawing on sate you for a while.
-
Free Speech
[Read the article: Firing Imus was the right thing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please - the U.S. Constitution is a limit on government power. It states what the government can and cannot do. It does not apply to private actors.
What a deplorable cop-out. The right to say unpopular or offensive things isn't dead words on a sheet of paper. It's a principle that defines a national identity. When you're willing to make an exception because you're offended, don't cry and scream foul when the blowtorch is turned on a personality you enjoy/admire.