Letters to the Editor
J.C. Miller
Published Letters: 344 Editor's Choice: 35
-
contractual coupling
[Read the article: More women living sans spouse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]anon’s original, succinct point seems in danger of being lost. Take away the pecuniary bribes, the fear of choosing authentically, the fear of disappointing mommy and daddy – and what’s the point of entering into marriage? What anthropological/social forces could conspire to reduce the intimate relationship to contractual transactions driven by economic insecurity, with no better than even chances of not failing and which require surrender of freedom?
The possibility for real trust begins in the absence of dependence and obligation. The possibility for truly caring communication and growth begins with the freedom to choose boundaries and distance when needed. Marriage supports neither.
-
creative rationalization
[Read the article: Back to Ohio: Prosecutor says 2004 recount was "rigged"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, absolutely correct. In the year 2000 there was a body of individuals exhibiting impaired judgment and antisocial traits, and invested with certain powers, which constructed an interpretation in a unique and anomalous manner resulting, in effect, in subversion of a process which would have (and ultimately did) demonstrated conclusively that by any reasonable interpretation, a larger number of individuals in the state of Florida cast ballots for candidate Gore than otherwise. Yes, their official rationalization awarded the presidency to candidate Bush.
Remarkably, some segment of this public continues to construct this body which subverted a nominally democratic national election as a legitmate “court” of some sort, that is, as a learned, principled group of individuals capable of impartiality and committed to justice and rule of principle.
This appears to be best understood as a mutual, protective rationalization which provides distraction from the fact that an unelected figure was installed, for ideological reasons, as “president” in 2000 and that in the land of the free and the brave revisionist accounts of this act of cowardice continue to dominate.
-
dancing with D'Souza
[Read the article: How the left caused 9/11, by Dinesh D'Souza]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The encouraging and effective rebuttals here of Mr. D’Souza’s conjectures is encouraging, yet belie a troubling undercurrent that appears to want to avoid confronting any element of truth in what is nevertheless, a defensive and flawed confabulation regarding the effective antecedents for 9/11.
No matter how well-reasoned and evidenced the reactions here, they largely remain reactions - and to that extent they allow Mr. D’Souza to keep the progressive left locked in a dance in which he leads. What if D’Souza is correct to the extent that an element (not all, but an element) of what does incite the extremist Muslim mind is, in fact, values championed by progressive forces in the U.S.?
If freedom – of sexual expression, from fear-based religious control of personal behavior, for oppressed out-groups, including women, to gain equal access to power, social capital and respect – if freedom is part of what terrifies and incites a violent, fear-based, moralistic and religion-based patriarchy (whether based in Iran or Washington, D.C.), then what response is most authentic and ultimately adaptive for those who champion freedom and progressive ideals? To get stuck in a reactive and unresolved dialectic on cause-and-effect with apologists for oppressive forces? Or to acknowledge that our support for ideals which advance human dignity and freedoms are, indeed, likely to elicit fear and reaction in patriarchy, and to own our commitment in spite of those reactions, as some writers have indicated?
D’Souza’s argument reduces to: “In reaction to the championing of personal freedoms by the left, reactionary, religion-based patriarchy may lash out violently.” A willingness to defend its commitment to humanistic and progressive ideals should allow the left to both correctly reject responsibility for the violent reactions of others, and to concede the element of truth in D’Souza’s claim.
-
Harm reduction
[Read the article: Colorblind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not to discourage democratic participation as a means of harm reduction, but it does seem to me that in our social context any individual (with possible anomalous or accidental exceptions) capable of being elected to public office is likely dangerously compromised, unprincipled, and unfit to play a role in formulation of and advocacy for the collective good, although I may be mistaken.
-
OK, but . . . . .
[Read the article: "Overcritical women and their excessive expectations"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“- they both want a family, they're in love, each person would like a life partner, etc.”
That sounds nice, but what does entering into a legal contract (which incurs huge costs for changing the relationship) have to do with it ?
-
meat eating is fear-based
[Read the article: Herbivore vs. carnivore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ambiguity and ambivalence around the choice of killing and eating animals versus vegetarianism arises because we avoid the direct experience of taking life and/or we escape the associated inner experiences.
Analogously, almost all adults have, in a moment of weakness, lost control and raged at or become physically rough with a child. In a healthy individual the immediate reaction involves feelings of deep regret, remorse, and a drive to avoid future incidents. Adults who have developed a capacity for empathy and autonomy use the experience constructively to change their behavior.
Those of us who have killed animals directly and hands-on know the response shared by all humans: similar feelings of regret, remorse, “wrongness”, and a recoiling from the destruction of something living and sentient. But as children, especially males, growing up we are domesticated not only to kill, but to kill those inner emotional experiences that would otherwise honestly and directly inform our choices. We are domesticated to kill off, to disallow, a part of self connected with empathy and control of aggression.
Ultimately – and profoundly ironically – what keeps us from accessing those inner experiences and from choosing not to kill, not to engage in the manly, virile habit of carnivory, is fear: fear of choosing authentically, fear of inner experience, and most of all fear of rejection by those whose approval and acceptance we become dependent on.
Bottom line: if a meat-eater could authentically and honestly access and report to us his or her inner experience around the possibility of becoming vegetarian, we would hear something like this:
“Yeah, right, like I’m gonna tell the gang at work I’ve become a vegetarian the next time we go out for burgers. Can you imagine? Or at Christmas dinner with Mom and Dad and everybody? The looks I’d get? No way could I do that."
"I’m afraid to.”