Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 20
-
fiddling while rome burns
[Read the article: Our Jennifer fixation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I certainly don't have an Aniston fixation - I never watched "Friends" and while I have a general sympathy for any person betrayed by his/her spouse, that's about it. I see the value of having the occasional "fluff piece" in Salon, so I'm not that worked up about this article on those grounds, either. What I do find most interesting, however, is what the article says about the cultural preoccupations of Americans. After 9-11, many Americans were asking "why do they hate us?" At the time, this may have been a reasonable question (in some ways); Al Qaeda had been operating under the radar of even many well-informed people. Today, after tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in Iraq by American weaponry, when the victims of Hurricane Katrina are being evicted from their hotel rooms, when the US government is finding new ways to cut welfare, sanction torture and violate civil rights - the story of the year is Jennifer Aniston? The most disturbing thing is that this may be a correct assessment of the situation, at least for most Americans. When the next international or domestic social catastrophe occurs, how many Americans will be caught by surprise?
-
conservative win
[Read the article: No Bush, please -- we're Canadian]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Conservative's win is very disturbing, but it's more important to note that about 64% of Canadians voted for parties to the left of the Conservatives (thereby adding considerable impetus to the idea that we need a reform of our electoral system so that if better reflects democratic preferences). And there is something to the argument that if the Conservatives could manage no better than a minority while the Liberals were busy self-destructing then they won't do any better in the future. However, things may not be quite that simple. If the Conservatives can keep themselves looking moderate and convince just enough people that they are not the crazy, right-wing fanatics that many of us suspect them to be, then they might win a majority next time out. After all, with our crazy electoral system, 39% of the popular vote can put a party into majority territory, and the Conservatives are only 3% off of that now. If they ever do get a majority, they would do irreparable damage to the country, though it's doubtful they would last more than one term if they pursued a really fanatical, American-style agenda. Maybe power will have a moderating effect - but here, we can look at the US, where the first term of the Bush presidency was supposed to be moderated by the fact that Bush lost the popular vote. That never happened, even before Sept. 11, and it's disturbing to think where Harper would take the country if he did not have to worry about immediately losing power. Indeed, he can still do great damage just as Prime Minister; there is a lot a PM can do that does not require going to Parliament. Finally, as a former Albertan, let me say how embarrassing I often find my former province. However, we must remember that even in Alberta, 35% of the population voted against the Conservatives - again, the electoral sytem just doesn't reflect this.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
iranian nukes
[Read the article: Countdown to the Iranian bomb]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Back in the 1950s, the US twice threatened (or at least discussed) using nuclear weapons against China. China's reaction - not surprisingly - was to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Iran is in a similar position today -it's been put on the "axis of evil", it's being singled out as the object of violent rhetoric by a state that has proven its willingness to launch aggressive wars. Why wouldn't Iran want a deterrent? At the same time, it's worth noting that China and the USSR were far more dangerous foes than Iran, and the world survived that period. Exaggerating the importance of an Iranian nuclear capability is one of the biggest problems that we face.
As the article mentioned, it's unlikely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, just the technology to develop them if it wants to. That's a perfectly adequate deterrent, and a perfectly reasonable response to a threatening situation. It's not that different from the "don't admit that we've got them" strategy that Israel has adopted. Iran has no reason to use nukes against any state inside or outside the region, and doing so would be tantamount to national suicide anyway. If the real threat of an Iranian nuclear capacity is that it would lead to proliferation - well, there's actually not much that can be done about this. Maybe a nuclear Iran will create a real drive to get nuclear weapons out of the Middle East - starting with Israel's arsenal - and create an impetus for the "great powers" to disarm themselves. After all, what possible right does the US have to nuclear weapons that any other state does not? Since when can the US be trusted to use its power responsibly? Surely Iraq has undermined that particular myth?
The idea that dealing with Iran's nukes is a test for the UN and the Security Council: this may be true, but it's also true that this approach presents a whole other set of problems. Remember that not long ago, the US decided the UN did not matter and launched an illegal war of aggression against a defenceless state. Now, when it wants the UN to do its bidding, the US suddenly decides that the UN matters again? I don't think the rest of the world is quite that stupid or forgiving. The double-standard at work here is ludicrous, and the risk that the UN runs is not just that it will be seen as ineffectual but that it will be seen as the unmitigated lapdog of the US and the other great powers. In such a world, there is simply no argument for obeying international law or respecting treaties that are designed to keep one group of countries dominant and relegate all others to second class status or limit their abilities to defend themselves.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine