Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

What you thought about what we thought

August 3, 2010 | 12:21 pm

Here's a roundup of some readers' thoughts about our pieces throughout the week:

Zoe Scaman of Quintessentially Digital addressed Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons' July 25 Op-Ed about the Internet's effects on the human brain. Scaman agreed with Chabris' and Simons' view that the vast amounts of information so readily available for the public on the Internet don't actually make people smarter but give them the precarious sense that they are, in fact, smarter. "Why therefore would anyone need to do a degree to learn the methods of rocket scientists when they can find it online?" Scaman asked. "It's a significant danger that the next generation will be facing when it comes to their education and vocational training."

Mark Paul and Micah Weinberg's July 25 Op-Ed on Jerry Brown's pension policy proposal was discussed on Calitics by Robert Cruickshank. Paul, Weinberg and Cruickshank all agreed that Brown's proposal would ultimately be ineffective, and Cruickshank saw the move as something Brown did only to bolster political support in the upcoming election.

Andrew G. Biggs of Notes on Social Security Reform commented on Sam Gill's Aug. 2 Op-Ed on Social Security. Biggs faulted Gill for failing to mention what he believes is one of the most urgent issues facing Social Security today: "The fact that Social Security is over $5 trillion short of what it needs to pay the benefits it promises."

As the marijuana debate rages on in California, Erich Vieth of Dangerous Intersection discussed Hanna Liebman Dershowitz's July 28 Op-Ed about legalizing marijuana, agreeing with Dershowitz's claim that arresting marijuana users is a waste of government resources. Vieth also commented on the disparity that exists when marijuana is illegal but alcohol and tobacco remain legal.

The Illinois Review condemned our July 26 editorial defending WikiLeaks. We argued that because no country should fight a war without the consent of its people, the people must be informed in order to have as knowledgeable an outlook as possible. The Illinois Review countered that the leaks do more damage than good, citing the fact that the leaked documents revealed names, homes and family members of Afghan citizens who were aiding the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban. The author of the post, "Ghost of John Brown," wrote, "Go to Afghanistan and pay for the funerals of all the informants that will no doubt be murdered by the Taliban for offering their support to the U.S."

-- Emilia Barrosse

Comments ()