Sunday, July 28, 2013

We get letters 7/28/13

By Doug Fields
The Reader’s Editor

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted letters to the editor on the web page.  Quite frankly, most of them haven’t been worth posting until now.  I will note a dramatic decrease in letters against Mayor Roger Claar since George Smith was charged with child abduction.  Make of it what you will.

Our first letter tackles the Trayvon Martin case.
To the Editor: 
Since none of my fellow Second Amendment supporters will say it, I will.  Trayvon Martin would still be alive if he was armed.  He probably would have been convicted of murder, but I think he had the right to stand his ground against an armed man who was following him with hostile intent! 
Now my white friends tell me I shouldn’t talk about Martin’s death because the high number of black on black crime.  While I appreciate their concern, I think they should focus more on white on white crime.  According to a study, 84 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites.  While you're trembling in fear of a teenager in a hoodie, it is more likely your son is thinking of all the ways he’ll cook your dead body.  While you worry about visiting the Southside, it’s more likely your wife is contemplating how to kill your children and herself.  I’ll go as far as saying that it is more likely that Ted Nugent will be shot by the accidental discharge of a fan’s gun than by a man wearing a hoodie.
I urge everyone to own a gun.  Because until we have social justice, we must protect our personal justice! 
Peter Z. Williams
President of the Bolingbrook African American Rifle Association
Our next letter asks us to be skeptical of Shakespeare:
To the Editor: 
So far I can't find a single skeptic that is actually skeptical, rational, and self-respecting.  Is it hopeless?
But perhaps you might find some interest in my take on Shakespeare's Sonnets.
You might consider as in light of this epistemological claim
But I also hope you might appreciate the type of internal consistency I believe I have offered.  Which should be seen as evidence in itself.  What might be better characterized as holism in interpretation.  I.e. it contains linguistic context and expression worthy of Shakespeare.  And containing a personal context ( a psychological interpretation or authorial psychology). Thus my reading has an author's whole historical context and psychology an expresses thoughts implicitly and holistically that embody an obvious worldview.  It also carries meanings which are not explicitly articulated in the work itself but also reflect on the artist's language.  And all forming a fallible and corrigible hypothesis. All the while providing a model, justification, and context for the the type of conspiracy and authorship concealment necessary and also all the while subsuming already existing theories.  Further it also suggest a socio-political and cultural history that clearly clarifies an external body of literature of that time that has been clearly enigmatic.  
I've literally begged CFI, CSI and everyone else in the community to do their indigence and actually engage in real skepticism and inquiry. But apparently they are completely incapable or unwilling to do so.  
Further Kendrick Fraser explicitly informed me of the following:
I am sorry but theories of Shakespeare authorship just don't fit into our interests, or mine.
We deal with issues with some scientific content, and that's where our organization's expertise lies.
They then went on to publish:
"Did Shakespeare Write ‘Shakespeare’? Much Ado About Nothing" 
Alan Tarica
Not that we’re skeptics, but we’ll offer you advice.  Directly address the arguments in the CSI article.  You might not convince the skeptics, but you might convince others.  Personally, I think there is plenty of evidence that Shakespeare existed, and wrote his plays.  Your theory needs to address that evidence.

Speaking of skeptics, is The Skeptics Guide to the Universe ever going to accept our $5 challenge?  

Maybe they should follow the example of this local skeptic:
To the Editor: 
If your psychics are so powerful, how come they’ve never won the Jaycee Bingo tournament at the annual Bolingbrook Jubilee 
Lisa X. Krosswell
Bolingbrook, IL
Years ago, they tried to play, but the Jaycees always refused to give them the winning board.  Apparently the rules back then stated that a player could not request a specific board.

Now our psychics don’t play, because they want to give non-psychics a chance to win.   It’s better for everyone.  Our psychics can focus their energy on more important events, and average residents can enjoy a fair game of bingo.

Think you can do better than these letter writers?  Send us an e-mail to bolingbrookbabbler at  Maybe your letter will make it past my desk.

Also in The Babbler:

UFO pilot arrested for causing sonic boom over Bolingbrook
Soviets fire cooling ray at Bolingbrook
Secret corporation vows to take artificial limbs away from Medicare patients.  
God to smite Bolingbrook on 8/1/13

Please note: All articles on this site are works of fiction.

No comments: