Letters for April 11, 2013

In defense of Fox

Re “Carrey it on” (Notes from the Neon Babylon, April 4):

No one, least of all Fox News commentator Greg Gutfeld, is denying Jim Carrey’s right to make a sarcastic and insulting video spouting a bunch of nonsense, but Gutfeld clearly felt that the vulgar insulting commentary about Charlton Heston was uncalled for. Cheap, insulting and vulgar jokes about a deceased and revered individual and respected actor—when as an actor, Carrey could definitely not fill Heston’s shoes—will bring out criticism. The fact that Bruce Van Dyke tries to defend Carrey and tries to set him up as some kind of intellectual is sad indeed. He seems to forget that Carrey’s threats against Gutfeld and Fox News are a bunch of hot air. Carrey threatens lawsuits, while knowing very well that he has nothing to sue about. Carrey’s intellect is clearly displayed in his use of the name “Fux” News as a “clever” substitute for Fox. It’s even sadder that Van Dyke tries to demean Fox News as the “fourth network.” I’d like to remind him that Fox News is number one in the ratings, with double to triple the number of viewers as numbers two and three. I understand that Van Dyke has every right as a liberal writer to express his opinion, but believers in the Second Amendment seldom would use the types of names that he claims liberals are being called. Of course the only truth he states in his column is the statement at the end of his “Carrey it on” column when he wrote, “At least, not anytime soon.” As usual, liberals can dish it out, but seldom can take it.

Fred Speckmann


What he said

Re “Krolicki backs pipeline” (Upfront, April 4):

If Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki wants the tar-sands oil from the Keystone XL pipeline so badly, why not build the refineries in the same location where we get the oil? That way, we will be able to use our resources, and the impact on the environment will be at a minimum. Our politicians need to think outside of their circle.

Harvey Salinger


Half in jest, wholly in earnest

Re “Legalize everything” (Editorial, April 4):

My favorite Abe Lincoln quote is, “A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.” I agree with him in that and agree with you that in the matters of personal liberty these laws are perversions.

In addition, the repeal of 18th Amendment ended a great majority of gang violence—the ’20s is when drive-bys were first invented. By using this same approach to other drugs—since alcohol is a drug—a similar cessation of gang violence should happen.

What I disagree with is the misuse of the words “logical” and “reason.” As for “logical,” you didn’t make any case whatsoever, you just changed some words and said it was logical. If one would like to have a logical conversation about this very emotional topic I would first address the parameters. This would mean defining that a marriage is among humans. Going along anthropological lines, a marriage is a union of one man and one woman for the purpose of producing and caring for children and forming a cohesive bond in society. Then next step in a logical conversation, since there are people that disagree with my assertion, is to square the concept of marriage against very intimate friendship. Then, once those parameters are in place, you can start to test the theory. For instance, you said that “people should be able to marry who they want.” Perhaps, but would you support the idea of incest? What if an 18-year-old daughter and her 50-year-old father wanted to marry? What if it could be proven that a goat had true affection for someone, should they be able to marry? Why not? Are not same-sex arrangements not the same abandonment of human culture that could also not expect offspring from?

As far as “reason,” you’re overlooking some obvious issues. Firstly, if someone drove faster the maximum posted allowable speed limit seven years ago, that was an event that began and ended seven years ago. An illegal alien does not break the law by simply crossing a border between two states and then that act has ended—each day the illegal alien is still breaking the law because he is within the state illegally. To put your “statute of limitations (SOL)” argument to a logical test would be something like this: If someone has stolen an item once, then the SOL will begin the countdown the day after the item was stolen. If someone steals an item every day for seven straight years and is apprehended one day past the SOL for the first item stolen seven years ago, one cannot reasonably say that the SOL has passed … perhaps it passed for the first instance, but not any of the rest. I would enjoy going into this in much more detail, but this comment is getting fairly large. Let me know if you’d like to have a five-pint discussion out in town, as I really enjoy talking to people with different thought processes.

Matt Stern


Editor’s note: To continue the argument in the spirit with which the editorial was written, this letter would be considered a logical fallacy of relevance, as the editorial stipulated marriage “among people,” acknowledged the immigration law was broken, and suggested the writer was stoned when the editorial was written. Specifically, though, the editorial would suffer from the logical fallacy of ambiguity, a straw man argument, because the meaning of the words was plain (if inelegant) when the Nevada Constitution excluded same-sex marriage, etc. On a meta-level, we were just saying we think these various prohibitions are stupid, so the editorial was written in an ironic way. Sure, a couple pints after the semester would be great.

Two men for every woman

Re “Legalize everything” (Editorial, April 4):

The practice of polygamy, the popular name for one man with many wives, comes down to us from the dark ages when women had no rights and were considered chattel. There is no equality in such a relationship, where one man is served by many women, each of whom is rival for his attention to them and their children. In present-day polygamous groups, only the first, therefore legal, wife and her children are entitled to share in the man’s health and dental insurance, life insurance, medical benefits, tax benefits and pensions, etc. The remaining women and their children are on their own and face poverty. As well, while the man can enjoy a sex fest every night with many different sexual partners, the women have to line up and wait their turn in his bedroom, much like cows waiting to be serviced by a bull. At least in same-sex marriage, the relationship is between two equals who have equal rights and equal responsibilities, and who equally share each other’s property. Polygamy reduces women to second-class citizenship, which is why the organization “Women Living Under Muslim Law” is petitioning their governments to end this ancient misogynistic practice … and who would know better than they? Time to kick this ancient practice into the garbage can of history, along with the thumbscrew and the rack. The year is 2013 AD, not 2013 BC, and women—in the First World but sadly not in the Third World—are now legally considered men’s equals.

Jancis M. Andrews

Sechelt, BC, Canada