Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
What I want
[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]JAKE 007 wrote:
"droogoy, what exactly do you want in 50 words or less?"
Not much. Just an epistemological beginning. A start. A point of origin for further meaningful inquiry.
For example, the definition might address the issue of whether the professed deity is "personal" or "impersonal" (e.g. in the pantheistic sense or analogous to the Bohmian multo-dimensional and implicate "Holomovement")
Or, is it deist? Thus, made the cosmos then left it to its own devices? (And humans to theirs!)
Or, is it some other blend? Does it require a god-man?
You get my point.
At least specify in the limited definition the extent towhich it can be distinguished from other competing claims. Then, if you can - try to add something to make it operational so we have a chance of examining whether there might be some hard evidence for its existence. (Saying "Look around at the cosmos" doesn't cut it!)
Give a definition and at least separate your claim from the alcoholic's suffering from DTs. (E.g. as possessing some remote basis for epistemology)
-
Great piece, Garrison!
[Read the article: Don Imus is vulgar. So what?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a terrific piece and highlights many issues and problems I personally had with the Imus dismissal. As THE NCAC Censorship News observed in its latest issue:
Imus' words, though intentionally offensive, were a clumsy and ineffectual effort at politically incorrect humor. After all, as pointed out, rap music deploys that language all the time. But Imus is no 20-something rapper and the joke fell flat. Not only wasn't it funny, it sounded gratuitously mean .....
While no one wants to defend Imus, there's another reason why the public response should make First Amendment advocates uneasy: the ever -shrinking limits on what can be said on the public airwaves.
Catholic grooups object to content they find offensive; Jewish groups are highly sensitive about discussions of the Middle East; Feminists object to expression they think disparages and objectifies women; Conservatives recently supported the removal of an outspoken anti-war figure on public radio...
The net result of accomodating the desire not to offend is that the sphere of public debate and discussion is reduced. Promoting uninhibited language is at least as important a social goal as promoting civility - and is distinctly more valuable than promoting orthodoy
This is very true and also, As Jonathan Winokur observed in an AARP piece three yrs. ago, is more evidence that Americans are reverting to a nanny-ish, overweening state of protectiveness and an increasing inability to tolerate negative language overall.
As Winokur noted: "It's as if our American eyes, brains and ears have grown soft just like our bellies"
How did the Rutgers' girls even learn of Imus' words? It had to come not because THEY personally tuned him in, but because some officious "nanny" and squealer heard him and felt duty bound to report.
But why aren't any of these judicious monitors of national talk probity also reporting on Rush Limbaugh? In the past month he has relentlessly re-played a disgusting ditty entitled "Barack, the Magic Negro" over and over (sung to the tune of 'Puff, The Magic Dragon') He has also featured at least one spoof of a black man from the "streets" haranguing Obama about his mother: e.g. "Obama, yo' motha is so fat that if she dun got a flesh-eatin' disease she'd just be walkin' round normal size"
If Imus can be fired, why not Rush? For what I regard as far worse and vindictive racism.
It is evident this nation's hypocritical nannies only go after some voices but not all, and hence make a mockery of their self-righteous anger.
It is time to grow up. And if Americans can't grow up, at least be consistent in applying their free speeech limits!