Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 106 Editor's Choice: 20
-
context is different
[Read the article: We're so over Vanessa Hudgens' naked pictures]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Farhad,
I suspect that you are on to something here, but I also suspect that a little less is going on that you may think. In this case, the context may matter. Ms. Hudgens was not filmed performing sex acts, like Paris Hilton or Pam Anderson, so the nature of her transgression is different. And, unlike other people who have appeared nude and in a sexual context on the internet, her pictures were meant entirely for private use. She had not posed for a photographer (amateur or professional), unlike some of the other people you mention. Where I agree is maybe there are so many of these pictures coming out that the powers that be are now deciding that it doesn't make sense to make a fuss over all of them.
I agree with your general premise that the internet has inured us to exposure to nudity, but much of that nudity takes the form of pornography, and I would assert that our complacency in the face of sexually explicit and often very abusive material is not necessarily a good thing. Indeed, it has desensitized many people to the questions of human dignity involved in pornography. Moreover, at the risk of sounding like a prude, there is merit in values such as modesty and self-restraint. I am not sure that flashing people when drunk or placing naked pictures of oneself and friends on the internet in a strange show of exhibitionism are examples of "mature" attitudes towards our bodies or sexuality. Indeed, these kind of things are profoundly immature and lacking in dignity. Maturity, I would argue, is treating sexuality with respect and others with consideration. These are not qualities that are necessarily nurtured by exposing yourself to the world.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
dianne feinstein
[Read the article: Dianne Feinstein, symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Glenn,
Really interesting post. I long believed that there were no substantial differences between the Democrat and Republican members of the American political class. Of course, when I was growing up during the 1970s and 80s, that was obviously true. In recent years, in the aftermath of Bush Jr., I've been given cause to reconsider my views. As the Republicans got more radical and tipped ever further to the fanatical right, the Democrats seemed - in principle at least - to be a distinct group with distinct values. As your post argues, however, the mystery of why the present Congress has been so ineffective remains and your explanation - that the values of many of the Democrats in power are not much different than those of the Republicans - seems a credible answer. Certainly, Senator Feinstein seems to have completely abandoned her base, though she will never be held accountable.
Is she a politician who has been corrupted by power and her exposure to the power class in Washington? Probably. Whatever the explanation, this is a reality that underlines the fact that Americans - particularly American liberals - need a new political party to vote for, one that actually represents their views. Since the incredibly dysfunctional American political system makes this unlikely, there is little hope ahead.
Finally, it seems to me that your post may illustrate what Ralph Nader was saying all along - the difference between Democrats and Republicans, when the rubber hits the road, is too small to matter.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
ahmadinejad and columbia
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Glenn,
I have not seen the "60 Minutes" interview, but I do recall the NYT article on Ahmadinejad's appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations a year or so ago. Quite simply, Ahmadinejad makes a lot of sense. At the very least, he comes across as rational and thoughtful and he makes good points. I remember him asking the Council if noone on it spoke for the Palestinians - a perfectly valid point. Moreover, as Juan Cole has pointed out, it's not at all clear that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic at all. His conference questioning the Holocaust was actually his effort to make a point about the limits of free speech in the West in the wake of the cartoon controversy. This may have been a tasteless thing to do but, arguably, that may have been his point. And we would do well to remember that he comes from a part of the world where Israel is widely regarded as an European colonial state that routinely brutalizes and terrorizes its neighbours and the people living under its occupation - and then uses the Holocaust to justify its actions. Thus, his statements and attitudes must be understood in this context.
In the end, what is telling about the reaction in the US to Ahmadinejad is how hysterical and irrational it is. It is based largely on misquotes and a political/historical tunnel vision - particularly when it comes to Israel - that is downright dangerous. Ahmadinejad will probably be gone after the next Iranian election. Then, I wonder which Iranian figure will become the new Hitler?
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine