Letters to the Editor
-
Can't Salon fidn a Better "Advice Columnist?"
Gary Tennis has once again proven that he has neither the expertise, nor the experience, nor the desire, to function even minimally as an "advice columnist." He flounders, he hems, he haws, he pretends to equivocate, he desperately tries to avoid anything resembling a less-than-comforting judgement of anyone or anything, he tries to insinuate that the LW's problems aren't really real, he rambles about soul-searching, he beats his chest about how concerned and caring he is, really he is, and how he's so torn inside about the enormity of the LW's problem...and all the time it's perfectly obvious that he's totally lost, floundering and drowning like the pretender whose bluff nas been called, without a clue even as to how to begin solving the actual problem. His lame response to the creationism problem is just the tip of the iceberg: all he did was echo a smattering of empty (and transparently dishonest) creationist talking-points, without even trying to understand or discuss the substance of creationist teaching. And his "advice" had absolutely nothing to do with the real substance, factual or moral, of the policy at issue.
Tennis is clearly a man who pretended to be an advice columnist because he thought it was easy money; and now that he's in it, and learning the hard way what the job really entails, he can't back up his pretensions with any real substance. He's disgracing himself, over and over, and it's getting painful to watch. When will Salon do the decent thing and put him out of his misery?
More to the point, why did Salon hire him in the first place? As a quick attempt to replace Garrison Keillor? Sorry, but that didn't work -- it was a failure from day one. If Salon can't find a better advice columnist than Tennis, perhaps they should get rid of him, scrap the advice column altogether, and spend the money on more actual journalism instead. We do, after all, have two wars and an election to cover. Does Salon really need an "advice" column?
-
for heavens sake, motherwell!
what if salon.com ACTUALLY took your advice! i don't know if you've ever been fired, but it's no fun. where would cary get a comparable job? and what about his mortgage - in san francisco! let the guy keep his job - it takes nothing away from you. just change the channel; don't read him.
-
david sugarman
My sarcasm receptors are somewhat different to those of most Americans due to my upbringing being decidedly not American (Hence my spelling) so just in case you weren't joking:
Cary's mortgage comes second to what he just suggested this letter writer tolerate. This bit of "advice" he just gave could harm the education of a school full of kids so while I am sure he is well liked by some readers, I feel frankly that he should not be in a position to do any more harm.
And stopping him doing harm through this sort of advice, is far more important to me at least, than not seeing him living out the rest of his days in a cardboard box.
-
A message from the letter writer
Greetings,
I'm "Crazy For Reason," the atheist letter writer, and I'd like to respond briefly to the responses to my letter.
Mostly, I just want to thank everyone for taking the time and trouble to offer what seems to me to be mostly remarkably constructive advice (and criticism, of my friend, of me, of everything). I'd also like to thank Cary for publishing the letter and responding to it thoughtfully.
For those who are interested: between the time I composed and sent the letter to Cary and the time it was published, I had already communicated certain things to my friend. One was my honest, gut-level feeling about what he was being asked to do (and the fact that he was even considering it). I felt I couldn't continue a dialogue with him without getting that said, and I also felt that he wouldn't be surprised by my feelings -- which he was not. He wasn't offended by their depth or severity; we've had enough debate over the past fifteen years that I think he knew fairly well what my basic reaction would be. I did not use the words "vomit" or "nausea," however.
I did originally suggest to him that he read "On the Origin of Species," which he agreed to do. I told him I'd have other suggestions for him as I researched them, and the responses here have given me some really excellent leads that I'll look into before I suggest them to him. (I want to be VERY selective and not give him screeds that will turn him off.)
I'm preparing a set of my own arguments to present to him, apart from the books and websites I'll recommend to him. Again, the responses here have been enormously helpful in this preparation.
To those who detected arrogance in my letter, I can only apologize; if I felt arrogant about this situation, I'm sure I would've proceeded without resorting to appeals for advice from strangers. It's also been suggested that I was taking "delight" in pointing out my friend's own uncertainty about elements of his faith -- to that, I can just say that I felt that his own doubts were part of the situation, and part of his complexity -- he has always been, as I thought I made clear, a complex and honorable individual. If he had no doubts, I wouldn't even attempt to address this issue with him -- and he probably wouldn't have sought my input.
For me, the main question here was less "How do I convince him that his course of action would be wrong" or "How do I disavow a Christian of his beliefs" and more "How do I deal with my feelings about a good friend who is considering doing something I feel strongly is ethically and morally wrong?".
Many, many thanks for all the effort you've put into helping me, and for the insight. It's strengthened my resolve to handle this properly -- both as a friend to him and as someone who believes that, as was wisely said here, "science is science and religion and is religion," especially when teaching children.