Home > Insight

InResponse: Letters to the Editor

The truth is out there ... and it’s on Fox
Oh my god, did Zoë actually admit to watching Democracy Now!? Maybe that explains some of her skewed views. Democracy Now! is an extremist news program that claims to present the truth. They make this claim even though they lie in their own advertisement, claiming to represent the “silenced majority” when they actually represent the minority view. These extremists, unhappy with the marginal bias of the three major networks, decided to establish a news program more fitting to their views.

While the world was watching the fight between Hezbollah and Israel, Democracy Now! showed their anti-Semitism by proudly showing the setup shots that reporters helped Hezbollah make. While searching for something to watch, I stopped on their program to see the images of bombed-out buildings. There in the picture with rubble and debris scattered everywhere was a pristine child’s toy.

Wait, that can’t be right?

A search of the Web quickly showed that this wasn’t an isolated incident. Pictures had been modified, duplicating clouds to make the destruction seem more extensive. An Israeli jet launching a flare to protect against heat-seeking missiles had its flare multiplied and identified as missiles. In the fallout, Reuters was forced to fire its Lebanon correspondent.

Hezbollah started the war with Israel by committing an act of war trying to further its mandate, which is to destroy Israel. With the aid of the press and doctored photos, Hezbollah played on the sympathies of Americans, playing us for fools. As a result of complacency of the American press, millions were fooled.

Only bloggers refused to be fooled. They analyzed the pictures, saw the fraud and put it out for everyone to see.

Did the Israelis bomb civilian areas? Yes, of course they did. They had no choice. That is where Hezbollah positioned the rocket launchers. These people have no problem using civilians as human shields, much like Saddam Hussein tried to use American volunteers to shield his military installations, even though they had volunteered to protect hospitals and schools.

So Zoë, I ask, as a 14-year veteran of the military, that you take time to get a more balanced view of the world before making political or military commentary. Perhaps you can balance your watching of Democracy Now! by giving equal time to the Fox News Network. Winstron Churchill is quoted as saying, “If you are not a liberal in your youth, then you have no heart.” I know from reading many of your columns that you have a big heart. All I ask is that the heart not get in the way of reason.
– Paul Confer • pconfer@mscd.edu

Truck you, buddy
Matthew Quane’s article “Fordasaurus Wrecks” is not an unbiased view of Ford’s current situation by any stretch of the imagination.

I was truly offended by your column. Not by its falsehoods, but by your lack of evidence and obvious lack of research on the subject. Don’t assume that everyone thinks you know what you’re talking about. I sure don’t.

Americans will always need trucks. But when gas prices go up, Americans decide they don’t really need a new truck right now. If gas prices level out at a steady price for an extended period of time, no matter how high that price may be, the amount of trucks being purchased will continue. The truck market may slow down as some consumers realize they can get by with less truck. But there will always be a market for trucks.

You state that the F-350 is “terrifying, gas-guzzling, (and) redneck-owned.”

Terrifying? That’s your call.

Gas-guzzling? It’s not designed to be a fuel sipper as you portray all vehicles should be. It’s designed for utility, and that’s what it accomplishes.

If you want to talk fuel economy, at least even the playing field. Compare Ford’s 1-ton truck’s fuel efficiency when fully loaded to that of the most fuel-efficient sedan fully loaded. Then, factor in how many trips the sedan will need to take to move the same amount of mass as the 1-ton truck can. You will see how fuel-efficient trucks really are.

“When did trucks become equivalent to opulence?” Good question. Here’s when: in the mid-1980s, when it became “cool” to modify your truck to look or perform better.

Here’s a more reasonable question: When did automobiles become equivalent to opulence? Answer: around 1905, when the Model A and Model T became signs of wealth. Why do people drive Audis, -which are the same mechanically as Volkswagens, when they cost more and look nicer? It’s a sign of opulence.

You strike me as a tree-hugger who only wants the world to pollute less. That’s nice, but it doesn’t work that way. You show me a Japanese-made truck that is more fuel-efficient than an American made truck of equal capacities, and I’ll buy it. You seem to see the Japanese market as a “the early bird gets the worm” type of investment. I see that, for a while, that may work on sedan sales, but that eventually, trucks will still need to be purchased for the blue-collared redneck who has to haul goods for one reason or another. Ford will come back with rising truck sales once fuel prices level out. It is inevitable. I’ll say it as “the second mouse gets the cheese.”
– Saul Reisman • Gum2crew@aol.com