Letters to the Editor
achilleselbow
Published Letters: 286 Editor's Choice: 16
-
@wellwater - The 'Tyranny' Argument
[Read the article: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops ...
And who decides what laws are just and unjust? Anyone with a gun? Sounds like a great recipe for anarchy. Which might be your ideal, but I don't see why you'd expect the government to endorse it. So if a bunch of parents in Kansas decided that teaching evolution is 'unjust' and stormed the schoolhouse, or if some crack dealers in the Bronx decided that the police were unjustly impeding their business, I suppose you'd applaud their exercising their fundamental liberties.
Your example about Iraq just proves my point, since most of the brave militiamen are not using their guns to rebel against the evil occupiers (a status which is itself debatable, at least from the point of view of the government), but to kill their neighbors who happen to be of a different sect or men who shaved their beards. And your Himmler quote is just a lame example of Godwin's law, since obviously ANYTHING the Nazis ever said about ANYTHING must be wrong. It can't possibly be the case that he was just talking about the basic requirements of running a state, whether it be a fascist, socialist, or democratic one.
It always surprises me that people invoke the 'best defense against tyranny' government without realizing that they are essentially advocating mob rule. This kind of reasoning is moot in any state, but particularly a constitutional democracy, where the people can (at least in theory) change any law they consider to be unjust. Now, if you're actually advocating the possibility of armed revolution and you're arguing against gun control laws on the basis that they might impede such an endeavor, doesn't that in itself prove their necessity from the point of view of the government and everyone else who may not agree with your particular cause?
As for the point about knowing the specifics of guns, I agree it's better to be more informed, but there are actual principles at stake here that are beyond details. Otherwise it's like saying that you have no right to hold an opinion on abortion if you're not a doctor. My point was that gun ownership is justifiable in terms of hunting and home defense, but not in terms of having a lethal weapon that could potentially be carried and used anywhere, and that laws should take this distinction into account. If my rifle/handgun suggestion doesn't work, I'd be happy to hear any other suggestions.
-
Apparently you do need a gal pal
[Read the article: A game with soothing graphics, gal pals]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You'd be a lot more convincing if you didn't contradict yourself in the first sentence with your subtly dismissive stereotyping of male gamers. And while your friends may hold progressive views on the matter (and can I please meet them?), they're far from the majority. When I've been out with a group of guys and girls and the conversation turned to video games, about 95% of the time the girls either roll their eyes, smile a resigned "boys will be boys" smile, or retreat to the bathroom to talk about, I don't know, Project Runway or something.
-
Two Seinfeld references already!
[Read the article: Women and their "girl crushes"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To Jerry's man-crush on Keith Hernandez and "not that there's anything wrong with that!" I would add George's man-crush on Elaine's "mimbo" boyfriend Tommy, whom he describes as "such a [i]cool guy[/i]!".
Yes, I think the man-crush is an established cultural phenomenon. The article's argument to the contrary reveals some people's tendency to try to couch all contradictory or slightly adverse aspects of life in race or gender. We have more in common than you think, and insecurity, low self-esteem, and feeling uncomfortable in your own skin are among those things.
That said, there is a sort of idea that men's desires are more straightforward and you want something or want to be something, you're supposed to just go for it and get it. And we're supposed to be hyper-competitive, so if we see some qualities in another man that we would wish to emulate, we'd rather die trying to become better than him at those qualities than admit his superiority. So I suppose it's possible that the sort of men that buy into this typical idea of manhood would be less willing to admit something like this. That doesn't mean they don't have them though. My most meathead, typical-guy friend turned into an adoring schoolgirl when we met the singer from Children of Bodom after a concert one night, and gushed for the whole ride back about what an awesome guy he was, though if you called it a man-crush he'd surely protest "I'm not gay!"
As for my personal man-crushes, I'll go with Viggo Mortensen, the bartender with the British accent at Crif Dogs in the East Village, and a whole slew of historical/literary figures.
-
The chicken or the egg
[Read the article: Britney and Lindsay go to college]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]DaMann - I suppose the 'debased' state of society has arisen ex nihilo out of their own collective free will? That's the problem with these debates that tend to one-sidedly place the blame either on 'society' as if it were just a mass of individuals making free choices in a vacuum, or on 'cultural influences' as if they are some external impersonal force that has its own life. To negotiate and see the relationship between the two, you really have to turn to Adorno, Jameson, Foucault, etc. So I'd be interested in reading the proceedings of this symposium, but from the summary, I'm afraid that it's unfortunately going to be just more of the 'society hates women' feminist analysis, which of course brings us back to the initial problem.