[extropy-chat] Moore, Morford, Doonesbury & Dawkings [was: Mandatory draft for your child?]

[Olga Bourlin]

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>

> It is also rather telling that you believe a newspaper that uses a
> nasty, lying SOB like Michael Moore as a reliable source.

I hardly believe anything I read in the newspapers, but I take note of the
various "truths" propounded by the dailies.  I think Michael Moore is
towards one end of the spectrum, and George Bush is towards the other end
(including exhibiting some of those nasty, lying SOB qualities himself).
George Bush cannot admit he's wrong about anything (maybe, as he believes he
has a special pipeline to god, that would be like saying god is wrong? - and
if that's the case, which man-in-the-looking-glass is calling whom a
"terrorist"?).

Commercial break:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

I was so heartened to hear Kerry mention "atheists" in the second debate
(and I've heard him mention atheists before, as well).  Atheists - as in,
yes, they are real people who are also citizens of the USA and whose
viewpoints need to be considered.  To even *acknowledge* the existence of
nontheists in America is almost a kiss-of-death in politics, so I think
Kerry exhibited quite a bit of courage in this respect.

One of my consistently favorite columnists is Mark Morford of the San
Francisco Chronicle (I know I've mentioned him here before):

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

Mike, forget about Michael Moore for a minute (I'm not actually a fan of
his, and haven't even seen his movie) ... what do you think of Morford
(e.g., the October 5 column)?  I don't agree with Morford's views 100% of
the time, but I just love his facility with words and phrases - and he makes
me think.

Someone whom I really enjoy reading and who *doesn't* write for dailies is
Richard Dawkins:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml

See ya lette,
Olga