Letters to the Editor
-
Low Standards
First we have to be subjected to Matt Sanchez. Now Camile Paglia. Who's the next shit-stirring clown Salon will feature? Don Imus?
You might get your kicks slumming around on Joe Scarborough, Joan, but please stop bringing trash home with you.
-
LuLu Forever
“…..what an ass.”
Now there’a a profound statement. What happened Lulu? Two of your three brain cells fire at once?
Come on Lulu! Get up off your ample Lefty butt. LET’S ROCK!
-
Two personal notes
Emily, thanks for your response (pages back). We differ in opinions, but I respect yours, even if you do want that right-wing pundit back on the pages, and even if I am, perhaps, a bit judgmental about said pundit.
Ms. Paglia: I have problems with your ideas, but person to person, I wish you the best. I don't know if my words have reflected that.
-
Consensus is the Correct Word
Why oh why is it that Tangerine's short rant blasting Gore's words "universal consensus" is the first editor's choice letter I see? The 88%-92% (Tangerine's numbers) of agreeing scientists make more than a consensus. Perhaps the editor who starred this letter needs to join Paglia and Tangerine in a simple dictionary search of the word.
-
Strength and Fear
S.H.A.M. Sam,
I found your personal account of your upbringing to be moving and compelling. I hope that I don't come across as too much of an assbag if I offer a comment aimed somewhat personally.
Fear is endemic to the Human condition. Hell, I don't need to tell you that - it sounds like you've already been asked to deal with way more than your fair share, right from the get-go. That sucks.
But please don't fall in to the authoritarian trap that you can get so strong, so tough, that you no longer have to be afraid. You will never defeat all of your enemies - maybe we as people are just hardwired for it, but there's just too damn much to fight about. You will never, ever run out of folks of whom to be afraid, who have the motive, the means, and the will to try to take you down, no matter how tough you are.
Am I advising you not to fight, to settle for being weak, a victim? Hell no. Fight hard. Fight Strong. But fight Smart - if you reduce your conflicts to only who is tougher, who is stronger, than you are battling your enemies on your exactly enemies' terms (witness: Bush, George W. vs. Bin Ladin, Osama).
The danger is that, while you can't eliminate fear, you can push it down so deep that you end up transforming it into something that's not really recognizable as fear anymore. This is extremely dangerous - because you can't recognize it any more, you can't even tell when it is leading you around by the short and curlies. It's still there, but down in the depths of the psyche it learns to disguise itself; as hate, as paranoia, as xenaphobia, as confidence, even as Orthodoxy. That's not tough, or strong - in fact, it's rather sad.
There is a stupendously awesome YouTube video floating around, that documents some UFC-style toughguy fight. In the one corner was your classic WWE-style madman - Massive size, cut like a statue, all flaring nostrils and bugged, meth abuser eyes. As they got their instructions, El Toro preened, snorted, and seemed to be literally trying to ignite his opponent with his eyes. His opponent, meanwhile, looked like the guy that makes you a sub down at the deli. He hailed from some Eastern-bloc nation, so it's not a stretch to think that he wan't some Fortunate Son. He was significantly shorter, no muscle definition, with a slight paunch - he was even balding, for Pete's sake. While Roid Boy stomped around, Deli Man stood there with a countenance that was about 95% boredom, 5% bemusement.
Well, y'all know what happened next. Bell rings, wild guy charges swiftly, swinging frantically - and 10 seconds later, he's on the ground, down for the count.
Check it out. It's a freaking thing of beauty.
Anyway, friend, I wish you the best in your battles.
Peace.
-
One more, S.H.A.M, and then I'll shut up (I promise).
This is less personal, more rhetorical:
A) You do your arguments a disservice by bringing in, and keeping alive, all of the homeopathy/scientology stuff into an argument that's primarily about Global Warming. I'm not saying that it's completely irrelevant, or that it doesn't provide you with some valid rhetorical points on the Global Warming debate - but such benefits are wiped out and then some by the impression that it can create, of a dedicated threadjacking warrior with an axe to grind. In my opinion, you're better off moving on, at least in this discussion, and focusing on GW.
B) I couldn't agree more that Skepticism will always be an important part of science and intellectual discourse, and that when we see people trying to not just counter it with arguments but banish it from the discussion, then it's a big fat glowing flashing red flag that maybe we need to step back and look at not just what we are arguing, but how we are arguing (OK, maybe I just hijacked your ideas just a little to serve my own agenda - but the point is, I think that there is some intersection in the folks that we admire).
However, please don't forget that Skepticism, like all ideas, is susceptible to Orthodoxy. In honest debate, we shouldn't try to use skepticism to obliterate our enemies beyond recognition (counter-productive in the long term), or maneuver the dialectic into some sort of Mexican standoff (is that racist? If so, I apologize). The goal (IMO) should be to challenge credulity, not to try to more firmly establish credulity in some other Dogma, including faith in Skepticism itself.
At some point, you owe it to yourself and your opponents to put down the gun and engage the actual ideas of the enemy. In the case of Global Warming, there is plenty of good, rational, well meaning discourse out there. It's here in this thread. If you can't or won't turn off your Skeptical buzzsaw and actually take your opponent seriously, you've reduced your role in this debate to that of a Devil's Advocate or Gadfly. I don't think that that's really what you want your role to be, here.
Anyway, again, Peace.