Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 106 Editor's Choice: 20
-
re: ms. Paglia
[Read the article: If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
While I disagree with some or much of what Ms. Paglia had to say, I do think that her views are valuable and deserve space in Salon. I think that she probably represents what could be called the "moderate Democrat" wing of the American political spectrum and, for that reason alone, should be given an opportunity to express her views.
Her views on climate change are, of course, profoundly annoying. But, then again, there are always people who want to believe that the earth is flat.
On the issue of Iraq, I agree with some of your readers that Ms. Paglia is far too soft with the first letter writer. The idea that the West is involved in a generational struggle with radical Islam will only happen if we allow it to happen and if the West keeps doing things that provoke the Islamic world. The reality of terrorism, and religiously-motivated terrorism, if irrefutable. However, the greater danger that we face as Western civilizations is grossly exaggerating what this terrorism is and what it can do. So radical Islamists blow up the occasional train or bus or plane. On a really good day (for them) they take out some airliners and maybe a building or two. On the scale of real war, this is nothing. Let's recognize the best way to deal with terrorism is to treat it like a crime, let the police do their job (within strict limits defined by human rights and due process) and let's stop using terrorism as an excuse to use military force against other parts of the world.
Indeed, when we agonize about how to integrate Muslims into the West, we should also be agonizing over why the West has done so much to alienate and abuse the very Muslim communities it is trying to win over.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
the foreign policy community
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Glenn,
Another excellent column. You're absolutely correct, of course, and this is one of the reasons that I don't share many people's optimism about a Democratic government in the US being much better than the Republicans. I have a great quote from a Gwynne Dyer book (unfortunately, I don't have the reference with me right now) wherein he cites an commentator who states, quite baldly, that there is no such thing as a serious American national politician who does not think that the United States should not rule the world until the end of time. That's coming from both Democrats and Republicans. And if we look at the foreign policy of most of the Democratic candidates, there is not much there to give the rest of us non-Americans hope that the US will change its ways in the world. The same ideas are coming out of the Democrats as the Republicans, they just have a different tone. And while it might have been true that the Democrats would not have invaded Iraq, now that the US is there, it is going to be almost as difficult for a Democrat to leave as a Republican. The same issues of American credibility, instability in the Middle East, preventing the rise of Iran, protecting Israel and looking after Israeli interests are driving the Democrats as much (or, in some cases, even more) as the Republicans. The fact that all of these are only problems because the US is trying to militarily and economically dominate the region is not something that would even occur to most "serious" foreign policy experts. Of course, they would argue, the US "national interest" requires that it be the international hegemon. Taking that assertion apart, however, and understanding what it really means and how devoid of moral content it actually is, is something that must not be done.
This attitude - which is another manifestation of "American Exceptionalism" - is a major part of the reason why the biggest problem in the world today is the United States. The US does not know how to cooperate with other states. If the US is not in the driver's seat, it is not interested in taking part. Treating other countries as equals is not something that American leaders have any experience doing, at least not in the modern era. And, sadly, it is not something that they think they should have to do.
So much in the world that needs to be done can only be done with the cooperation of the US. Over time, this will change, as other powers emerge. But the US will have the hardest time adapting to a world where it cannot call the shots. Trying to prevent the emergence of any "peer competitor" - something that is an explicit part of American military policy - is where the greatest danger lies. What the US will do to maintain its dominant position should concern all of us.
-
sympathize with the letter writer
[Read the article: My girlfriend tried cocaine at a party! She was drunk! Oh my God!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Cary,
I have a fair amount of sympathy with the letter writer. There really is little excuse for using recreational drugs, and it's rather tiresome to see so many of the other respondents go out of their way to insult the LW simply because he finds drug use abhorrent. If the LW is to try to see the other perspective, maybe these people dumping on him should consider that they may be "wrong" too. Indeed, it seems rather bizarre that so many people are upset because the LW is intolerant of drug users. It sounds like a lot of people are self-justifying, rather than trying to understand the LW's perspective.
I do think that the LW has a legitimate concern: his girlfriend giving in to "peer pressure" at her age is an issue and does say something about her character. Admittedly, people can give in to peer pressure at any age, but how easily one does it is a comment on how strongly and clearly a person understands and holds his/her own values. The LW may want to take this into consideration when he is trying to understand the kind of person he has become involved with.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine