Be skeptical of prejudice, not China

Letter sent to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel replying to http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/48635132.html:

June 20, 2009

Dear Editor,

Chuck Bekos of Milwaukee, in a June 20 letter, suggests that entrepreneurs not work with Chinese partners. He points to some cases of faulty products from China asks "what on Earth do the Chinese know or care about hygiene?" Had he pointed to wrong doings of members of another group and asked "what on Earth do the Blacks/Gays/Irish/Jews/ know or care about ...?" and suggest that we not work with members of that group, everyone would recognize the ugly prejudice of the letter. We must recognize the ugliness of characterizing a billion diverse individuals based on the actions of a few of them. Let us be skeptical of prejudice, not Chinese people.

Chad Van Schoelandt

Bill O is not Responsible for Tiller's Death

Sent to Journal Sentinel

re: 'Why O'Reilly's words matter', Friday, June 12, 2009

Dear Editor,

Mary Alice Carr recently claimed that Bill O'Reilly's "words incite violence" and thus he is responsible for the vicious murder of Dr. George Tiller. O'Reilly is a hotheaded loon, but his condemnations were not calls for vigilante violence. It sets a dangerous precedent to hold a commentator responsible for violence when he did not call for such acts, a precedent that would actually apply to Mary Alice Carr herself. If a Tiller supporter should, after reading Carr's condemnation of O'Reilly, avenge against those perceived responsible for Tiller's death, should we hold Carr responsible for the murder of Bill O? Obviously not, for the same reasons that O'Reilly is not responsible for Tiller.

Chad Van Schoelandt

[UPDATE: The letter was accepted: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/48109627.html]

I just codified a new principle for theories. I believe this is principle is used implicitly by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The principle states that you should needlessly multiply entities in your explanations.

For example, if you are discussing 9/11 you could say that the Twin Towers were brought down by planes crashing into them. You could instead say that bombs inside the building did it, but you do still have to say planes hit the buildings, so we'll just staple the bombs into the explanation. In fact, why hit everything with planes, when you can staple a missile into the theory? Oh, and the planners should not be terrorists like Osama who is still in the theory somewhere, but instead we will make it done to advance the plans of the Project for a New American Century, and if we can staple in a money interest for someone when building 7 came down, and hell, maybe even staple Israel in there somehow.