Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 108 Editor's Choice: 20
-
wright and walsh
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Joan,
I have great respect for you and Salon. But after reading your column about Wright, I really have to say - and I don't mean this to sound nasty - but you're really white and you're really American.
Wright is clearly wrong about a lot of things. But he is also clearly correct about many other things. Surely only the most cursory examination of American history, as well as modern conduct, reveals such a long list of atrocity that the very idea of an American leader condemning anyone else - including Al Qaeda - for his/her conduct is transparently ridiculous? Surely it's fairly clear that the same depraved indifference to life that is the hallmark of AQ has long been the hallmark of many American leaders - indeed, of the powerful, in general?
At any rate, thank you for an interesting column. But I just hope that most Americans don't think like you do. Being self-critical is important, and there is already far too little of that in the US today.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
is there any balance in any party in the us re: israel?
[Read the article: John McCain's bid for American Jewish votes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Glenn,
Excellent article, as usual. I would point out, however, that both of the US political parties are working on the same premise as McCain. The Democrats are just as committed to the right-wing Israeli agenda as the Republicans - it's just a matter of degree, and a slight one at that. American Jews who make support of Israel a matter of supreme importance really don't have to choose between the parties, since both consistently kowtow to Israeli interests. Witness, of course, Hillary Clinton's recent threats about bombing Iran.
What makes the current situation a bit different is that Barack Obama is putting forward elements of a Middle East policy that are somewhat sensible. So, he wants to talk to Iran rather than simply enforce its pariah status or bomb it. That is very unusual for an American politician, especially a leading American politician, and he compensates for this sensible stand in other ways, such as going out of his way to praise Israel.
The fact that 69% of American Jews consider the Israel question to be very important is relevant. People vote on many issues, but there are a few people who vote on single issues. The question would be how many American Jews consider the Israel question important enough that it is the single biggest factor determining their vote? Your information suggests "not many". I hope that is true. Because a sensible US policy towards the ME means being willing to put pressure on Israel and actually pursue a really balanced position. It is hard to see many American politicians actually doing that, as imperative as that need has become.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
interesting
[Read the article: I dated Cindy Sherman ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
I just started reading the article, but I must admit that I've never heard of "Cindy Sherman". What is this "art world" in which she is a celebrity?
At any rate, interesting article.
Shaun Narine
-
the really frightening thing is aipac
[Read the article: AIPAC conference reignites fight between McCain and Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
McCain is spouting the same drivel, so there's not much new there. What is going to be more interesting -and, I'm sure, much more depressing - will be to see what Obama and Clinton have to say to AIPAC. I'm sure that both of them will be swearing their undying loyalty and fealty to Israel. If that happens, it underlines one of the biggest problems in American foreign policy making today - i.e., the inability of the American political establishment to tell the right-wing, "pro-Israel" lobby to go and take a flying leap. Let's face it - AIPAC represents fanatical positions on Israel, positions that have deeply harmed US national interests all over the world for many years. Yet, saying this obvious truth, or taking the sensible stand of adopting a genuinely balanced position towards the Arab-Israeli conflict is one that, apparently, no serious US politician can do.
But I wonder if this is true? If someone (say, Obama) got up and said to AIPAC "look, I will follow a policy that actually balances the legitimate needs of the Palestinians with the legitimate needs of the Israeli state" - well, what would really happen? Jews don't vote as a bloc, they constitute only 2.5% of the US population, and many Jews are embarrassed by Israel and its conduct. The "Christian Zionists" aren't voting Democratic anyway, so who cares what they think? Maybe it's about time that an American leader broke the chains that the establishment has forged between AIPAC and US foreign policy. Or, put another way, until somebody breaks those chains, the US is going to remain part of the problem in the Middle East, rather than part of the solution.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine