Over the years I've submitted a fair number of letters to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. And I've even had some published. I'd reckon that my hit rate is right around 10%. While that may not sound too impressive, fellow letter writers of a conservative bent assure me that it's actually above average.
With the launch of Fraters Libertas a few years ago, the quantity of my submissions has dropped dramatically. Why should I bother trying to slip one past the gate keepers at the paper when I have a platform that allows me to say anything I want, whenever I want?
I still will dash off a quick letter of rebuttal to the Strib now and again when the spirit so moves me. And I read the letters on a regular basis. Not because they're interesting or informative. Most of them are not. No, I read the letters because I'm continually amazed at the daily displays of poor reasoning and weak logic that the Strib deems worthy of inclusion. I could understand if they chose to print thoughtful letters that reflected the paper's left leaning ideological bent. What I can't understand is how some of these silly and, quite frankly, stupid arguments ever are allowed to see the light of day.
Here are a couple of choice examples from Tuesday:
All about oil profits
Thanks for the May 29 editorial on gas prices and the national petroleum reserve. While it's good for national security to hold back the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it seems likely that President Bush is really out to hold back oil supply and raise prices. Whether by holding back the Strategic Reserve or trying to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Bush administration is out for oil profits, not the public interest.
If you're going to rant about how "it's all about oil" you should try to stick to one side of the supply/demand argument. After first suggesting that Bush is seeking to "hold back the oil supply" to help his cronies in the industry by raising prices, the letter writer then goes after Bush for trying to open up drilling in ANWAR, which would undoubtedly increase the oil supply. Even though I realize that much of the left views Bush as some sort of idiot savant evil genius, it's hard to fathom how this master plan of his to both increase and decrease oil supplies would end up lining the pockets of the oil barons.
It gets better.
Smoke is smoke
More than one recent letter writer has decried a lack of evidence that secondhand smoke, like firsthand smoke, causes serious health problems. To those folks I ask: What is the difference between the two? One is inhaled directly, the other indirectly. The secondhand variety may not be sufficiently hot to sear one's mouth and throat, but it is cigarette smoke nonetheless and thus contains the same harmful substances as firsthand smoke.
Common sense therefore tells us that it also is toxic, not to mention the attendant stench.
Common sense tells us that anyone unable to differentiate between cigarette smoke inhaled directly into the lungs through the mouth and throat and smoke exhaled and dispersed into the environment is brain addled. One of the reasons that smoking is so harmful is that lungs act as filters. Which means that many of the toxic substances in cigarette smoke are caught in your lungs when you smoke. It ain't about how hot the smoke is.
I'm not trying to say the second hand smoke is not harmful, although I believe that its effects have been grossly exaggerated. But to try to argue that secondhand smoke is no different from firsthand smoke is ridiculous.
Back to the question at hand. How can such letters (these are only the most recent examples of the crap that is published almost every day) be considered worthy of appearing in a major daily newspaper?
Two answers immediately come to mind:
1. Ignorance. They don't know what they don't know, namely how lousy these letters are.
2. Apathy. They simply don't care.
Neither response reflects well on the Star Tribune editorial staff.
No comments:
Post a Comment