Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Practicality vs. Principle
[Read the article: Responsibility for the last seven years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Something occurs to me that I don't think has been stated explicitly, yet.
The arguments "in favor of" torture seem always to be made from the perspective of practicality. "IF a torturer saves a million lives, he'll be thanked, not indicted."
The universal arguments against torture are made from the perspective of principle. By people do not believe torture can ever be justified "morally."
The intersection of these positions on torture occurs within many people for themselves: people WANT to hold the principle and conviction to condemn torture in every situation, but they also (at least, some of them) recognize their own impulses to vengeance and sadism and might quite readily admit, "If my child's life were in danger, I'd do anything."
Let's not make light of that cognitive dissonance. People who engage in this kind of psychic exercise can often get confused about their "thoughts" vs. their "feelings" vs. what they "know" to be true about the world.
I guess my point on all that is just that I feel a bit sympathetic to McArdle, because I don't think she really has fully sussed-out what she's talking about, but she knows its upsetting.
As for me...
I universally advocate both de facto and de jure prohibition of torture in ALL circumstances and situations, and I have no problem with that.
I also fully recognize my own personal weakness, and if I were presented with the "magical situation," I'd torture someone in a heartbeat. I'd also confess, fully expect to go to prison, and likely be murdered within the first week.
But I'd die in prison knowing that I had done what I believed/felt/knew had to be done, and I'd make no excuse for it.
I suspect that the catch for most folks is that they can imagine the same "magical situation" in which they could play torturer, but they cannot accept the reality that this means they don't have hearts of gold.
In other words, "It would be nicer if I could get away with torturing someone, and everyone else would believe me when I said I did it with the purest intentions."
Sorry, no, not possibly.
-
The Real Problem
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is that our teetering "service-based" economy is somewhat dependent on the ability to fly around the country.
When the working-class can't afford air travel, virtually every part of the country loses a big chunk of its tourism industry.
Isn't that really why undercharging for air-travel was able to be sustained for so long?
Seems like the results to expect at this point include:
-- much higher airfares
-- far less choice in flight scheduling
-- ubiquitous decrease in labor opportunity for tourism dependent business
Oh, well. Too bad, I used to love to fly.
-
Question on the Hillary Electability Argument
[Read the article: Obama and the white working class]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I favor Obama at this point, but will vote for Hillary if she somehow wins the nomination.
Question to all the adamant Clinton supporters, who see Obama as a disaster in the general:
What states are Clinton likely to win that Obama is likely to lose in the general election?
The nomination process is a process which pits Dems against Dems. The general is a process that throws everyone into the same voting booth. Surely many voters believe that our current administration hasn't done too well. Surely they will realize that McCain is a doddering old fool who is going to continue EVERY policy of Bush.
If not, where will the problems occur? I'd really like the predictions about which states will break to McCain.
-
Not the age, exactly
[Read the article: The dreaded septuagenarian issue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not at all important that the guy is in his 70's chronologically.
It's crucial that the guy is showing signs of dementia already, and he hasn't even been elected.
If 30 seconds of video can be exploited, how about the hours we're going to have of McCain wondering what the hell his position is on a subject?
In a way, I think either Dem candidate will likely be able to beat McCain in the general just by standing next to him from time to time.
-
Should I Register Republican?
[Read the article: The odd case of Dr. Cyril Wecht]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Will that help me evade any potential prosecution?
Should I photocopy a canceled check made out to the Republican party? Show it to the DA and ask for a break?
I love my country.
This is meaningful stuff. The 80% to 14% statistic is frightening.
-
DYING to be Offended
[Read the article: Are women less willing to speak their minds?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The comments here are fascinating.
This woman put out her "report" because she's seeing a phenomenon she doesn't understand, and she's looking for input.
Posters here are claiming she's "slamming" the women who don't comment, or she's being a concern troll about why women won't share their opinions.
I don't think there's any need for a value judgement, and I didn't really perceive her video post as an attack on the women she was showing in clips. I just saw a woman puzzled by what she was experiencing and speculating about it.
Note to everyone who is "offended" by the original piece: you may as well be "offended" by the Grand Canyon. It's nothing personal, and nothing to do with YOU.
-
THANK YOU, Broadsheet
[Read the article: Seal Press scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For settling this question for me.
Now I know. Small feminist publishing houses are racist.
-
@ meeneecat
[Read the article: Quote of the day: It's a gynocracy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I went to Brown, studied some semiotics, and I sure did get an earful of power-structures and hegemonies and racism and sexism and all kinda stuff like that.
But I have a question maybe you'll answer for me...
I understand full-well the perspective that "racism" or "sexism" are both constructs which depend on a dominant power-structure, just so you know I'm not totally ignorant of your argument.
So the question, finally, is a comparison between a few situations:
When a man says to a boy, "You throw like a girl!" Is that sexist?
When a woman says to a girl, "You're dressed like a tramp!" Is that sexist?
When a woman says to a boy, "Stop your sniveling and man up!" Is that sexist?
Just curious what your answer would be. I'm apt to label all three circumstances as "sexist," despite the fact that the last one is used to subjugate the male to the female's power.
Is this wrong? How so?