Ummmmm....Spencerian

My usual mode of communication is heavy on the irony and deadpan sarcasm, so I understand if people cannot tell when I am being genuine. With that in mind, let me say that I thought this letter to the editor of the Register Guard kicked ass.

Imagine Will as a worker

There have been several letters to the editor lately chastising George Will for his column in which he seems to get his facts wrong (Register-Guard, Feb. 15).

Come on, give the guy a break.

Will is one of those who infest our political scene under the rather vague heading “pundit.” As such, he is not especially obligated to facts; it is his task to display an attitude, emphasize a position, register charges or reinforce a bias rather than do something so dreary as attempt to discuss facts.

After all, if Will were more concerned with reality than with his familiar and comfortable opinions, he would not be an exalted columnist and would have to find something else to do — maybe get a job?

I have tried to picture George Will toiling away at something useful: driving a school bus, playing a violin, distributing peanuts on a flight to Atlanta, ironing a shirt, etc.

Alas, I cannot.

J. Frank Thibeau

Eugene

Just when I have renewed faith in my fellow man, asshat Peter E. Loewy (welcome Peter, you self-Googling madrehumper!) takes us back the nineteenth-century and gives us a taste of some pure Social Darwinism.

Let the nonviable perish

Bank bailout, toxic mortgage rescue, stimulus package — they all have one thing in common. In a manner that is contrary to the observed laws of nature, they provide continued support for entities that would otherwise fail, succumb, die. Humanity, as bright as it sometimes shines, has not yet evolved to where it can successfully mess with Mother Nature, not even the anointed Barack Obama.

For whatever reason — be it empathy, compassion or an unwillingness to witness suffering — we are unable to let the nonviable expire, whether they be people, banks or car manufacturers. [ed: Holy frak!]

Rather than let the shaky, feeble, poorly designed and mismanaged tumble, crash and burn, at which point we can shove aside the debris to build anew with knowledge of what didn’t work before, intervention seems to be the preferred alternative.

Our interference with nature’s culling creates a growing body of patched, cobbled-together, inefficient and fragile entities. They teeter on the brink of failure and require ever more resources to support their steadily increasing numbers.

There will come a time in the near future when we no longer are able to bear the burden. Then, what was once a catastrophe of manageable proportions will have grown into a nightmarish monster of unbridled destruction. Nature — with her indiscriminate, irresistible force — will correct ruthlessly humanity’s errors.

Once unleashed, we will be powerless to stop it. And all because we refuse to let the nonviable perish.

I hope I’m wrong. Obviously, I think I’m right.

Peter E. Loewy

Eugene

It certainly is obvious that Peter thinks he is right. And Lord knows that if the economy does collapse, Pete will be right there telling us it was because we didn't have the moral will to kill the weak. Well, Pete, if that does happen you better hope to John Galt that someone shows up to take you to the secret mountain-top retreat, because my roving band of survivalists will have your name on our list of people that don't need to be consuming any more of our precious resources. Non-viable people indeed.