Letters to the Editor
Zootsuiter
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 2
-
It's all about preserving the status quo
[Read the article: Is a new conservatism possible?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once upon a time, conservatism used to be widely defined as "wanting to preserve the status quo." I think that's still what it mostly is about. If the status quo includes racism, dysfunctional health care and so on, so what? It also includes unprecedented wealth for some and the illusion of it for some more, so for them, that's worth conserving.
To me, what distinguishes Reagan and Bush Jr. from, say, Ford and Eisenhower, is their deep desire to preserve the status quo ante, the status of quo of bygone eras, be it the '50s or even prior to the New Deal. Before women woke up, before diversity, social entitlements and so on. Does W also champion the go-go capitalism of the private equity world and love that the US is the only superpower? Sure. That's just to say that self-interest trumps ideology, even for ideologues.
Liberalism probably has as many internal contradictions as conservatism. But because it is not fixed on the past, it can tumble forward, it's own contradictions giving way to new ones as times goes by. That conservatives are currently replaying the church/state debates of the 17th century says a lot about the movement's inability to move on.
-
It's all about the blues
[Read the article: Rock vs. jazz]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great column. Great rock is often, IMO, a kind of jazz. That's not as silly as it sounds -- they both come from the blues. Cream, Hendrix, Steely Dan, Radiohead, Van Morrison, Santana -- there are so many examples -- where rock musicians rise above the simple three chord form and 4/4 rhythm to create freer, more expansive works. Jazz, blues, rock -- they all seek to create an underlying tension, whether rhythmic or harmonic or both -- and then resolve it.
There was a moment in rock, around the early '70s, when it sure seemed like rock might become a kind of jazz. Fusion usually refers to the jazz guys who were checking out rock (Weather Report). But what about the rock guys checking out jazz? Santana, Winwood, Allman Brothers, Jeff Beck, Steely Dan and so on? This was wonderful music, a nascent adult form of rock, but it got swamped by Led Zeppelin, on the one hand, and disco on the other. Still, it's exciting stuff and has never really died. Listen to Josh Redman or John Scofield and you can still hear it.
I really related to your personal music history. I had a similar voyage. Rock is very basic music; I think as we grow older, our brains both appreciate and crave more complexity. For some people, that means turning to classical. But for others, more complex versions of rock are attractive, and the giant gray area between jazz and rock can be an exciting place to dwell.
Some jazz musicians have their heads up their butts about this sort of thing. Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington played dance music. Today kids dance to rock and hip hop and so on. Why can't they dance to modern jazz? I was at a Redman concert at Berklee a couple of years ago and people were dancing in the aisles. More jazz musicians (not all, just more)need to think about putting that in their music, whether through rock, soul, hiphop, salsa, samba or whatever. That's why it was so cool that Caetano Veloso, a giant of Brazilian jazz, put out a rock album last year (it's called Ce).
-
It's about the line between belief and action
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm an atheist, always have been. I argue about religion whenever I get the chance. But I was very uncomfortable with Sam Harris's idea that religious moderates are the big danger in the world, because they enable religious fundamentalists. After all, aren't moderates halfway to atheism? Historically, that's pretty much the case.
Hedges does us all a service in pointing out the big problem with militant atheism: it can lead to militant nationalism. Atheism may be neccessary, in the long run, for a morality that encompasses all of humanity (not just your religion), but it is not sufficient. It is not even, in this era, the most important thing. The most important thing, possibly, is to focus on the effects of any principal, dogma, belief system, on real people and weigh that. You can believe that religion is wrong, but when you believe that religious people are not only wrong, but should be stopped cold, you are crossing a line.
I always resent the "atheism is it's own religion" argument and I think Hedges is wrong about that. Atheism is a one-liner: there is no God. After that, you have to figure out what you think is right or wrong. Some look to philosophy, some to science, some just take it as it comes. But he's alerted us to a bigger danger -- that intolerance of religion can lead to intolerance of religious people and that can lead to war, genocide and other great ills.
The front in this long historic war of ideas is not where people like Harris put it. We are still fighting the war to separate church and state, to recognize (as Hedges does) the difference between piety and morality, and so on. Atheism and atheists still need to be recognized as valid positions and people in our society, much less in Iran. But we atheists need to keep our patience, not resort to cheap rhetoric. I agree with another poster that most atheists share little with Harris or Hitchens, but it's worth considering that their message is now getting a lot of play and will be influential. Atheists are no more immune to hype than anyone else.