Our contentious readers
It's very interesting that right-winged supporters usually resort to name-calling whenever they cannot provide sources to back up their opinions. The recent letter by Dan Calabria is a prime example. While bashing Robert F. Kennedy's article "Killing Science," he doesn't provide anything even remotely resembling sources to back up his rants. Instead, Calabria tries lame references to Kennedy "driving his family-owned fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs and assorted luxury cars [and flying] all over the country on private jets paid for by his incredibly naive supporters," etc. Where did he get this information from? I certainly didn't get any of that from the article I read.
This is so typical of the right-wingers who (I suppose for the most part) get their information from 30-second sound bites or read a portion of an article without reading the whole thing. Or, in some well-documented cases, not doing enough research.
Case in point: In his book Lies…, Al Franken points out that Wall Street Journal writer Paul Gigot praised Attorney General John Ashcroft's leadership in helping reduce the rate of gun violence from 12 percent in 1993 to 7 percent in 2001. What's wrong with that picture? For one thing, Bill Clinton was in office from 1993 to January 2001. John Ashcroft was nowhere to be found in Clinton's cabinet. So how, Franken asks, could this downward trend be attributed to Ashcroft?
Right-winged Bush supporters blindly spout off what they've been told by FOX Cable News or Rush Limbaugh, but they never bother to back up their assertions with actual sources. Instead, they usually resort to name calling, like Calabria, who ends his letter by using the terms "fools and jerks," to ridicule not only Kennedy, but his supporters.
—Lowell C. Johnson
Tampa
I often get a good laugh from the one-sided single-mindedness of some of the letters to the editor (from both sides of every issue). The replies to "Apocalypse Now" by Hal Crowther were no exception.
To Sam Moffitt, veteran of four years in the Navy, I have to say (as a veteran of 25 years in the Army, honorably retired) that his claim that "no soldier, sailor, airman or Marine does anything without the direct order of his superiors" gives me reason to doubt that he even knows what the U.S. Navy is. Yes, they're taught to follow orders — that's kind of necessary if you're going to have an effective military. But every day there are many things done (good and bad) without a direct order. Most soldiers, sailors, etc., can and do think for themselves. Those who can't usually don't last much longer than four years.
And Graham Melrose's claim that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is a "manifestation of our culture of violence" makes me wonder if he shouldn't move to a different country — you know, one of those non-violent, peace-loving countries like the ones that raised those kind and sensitive souls who butchered Nick Berg like a cow.
—Bob Klase
Largo
Too good to be true
Though I have my doubts about the sincerity of your apology, I will say that you left just enough clues in the offending piece to indicate its true satirical nature. I mean, come on: A PR flack named "Ken Shillman"? It's too good to be true, which means it's obviously bullshit.
I guess you were just too subtle. Or maybe too many people could imagine somebody actually saying: "Nobody wants to have to think when they go out to eat."
You have nothing to apologize for, which is why I hope your apology today was also satire.
—Spencer Fleury
Palmetto
This article appears in Jun 10-16, 2004.