Letters to the Editor
achilleselbow
Published Letters: 283 Editor's Choice: 16
-
I found it surprising too
[Read the article: Alexander Cockburn's climate change adventure]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've always admired Cockburn's writing, as well as that of his brother's. What I detect in this crusade of his is a (perhaps misguided) desire to distinguish himself from the 'liberal' pack by taking on a contrary position, as his friend and collague Christopher Hitchens has so famously done.
It would be insane to dismiss either of these two men as some sort of puppets of the right-wing conspiracy. The fact that someone makes an argument that also happens to be made by a faction one doesn't like is not enough to discredit that person or the argument itself. This is the same tactic used by Israel to paint its critics as anti-semites or by Bush to attack democrats for being terrorist sympathizers.
Unfortunately, our society has reached the point where ideologies supercede individual arguments or facts. People mostly shape their views by supporting the opposite of things that they believe to be associated with a certain image they have in their minds of the kind of person they don't like. You see this in things like the recent decision by the fundamentalist movement to drop environmental initiatives because that's part of the 'liberal agenda'. It's not difficult to see how this leads to a vicious cycle exacerbated by the media.
However, in complex scientific cases like this, I don't see many alternatives. I consider myself a fairly well-educated person who makes a reasonable effort to stay informed. But I am no scientist. I can follow statistics and hypotheses well enough, but when talk turns to specific mechanisms and explanations, all I know is what my source tells me. And at that point it becomes a matter of how much I trust the source and what I think they are trying to accomplish.
Of course, the objective scientific truth exists, but in a practical sense, it is only accessible to the vast majority of non-scientists by way of summary and report. So my belief in man-made global warming relies mainly on mainstream media reports that "the global scientific community is in agreement". A right-winger's denial relies mainly on the links provided by conservative bloggers to dissenting studies or alternative theories. One can choose between the two on the basis that the former is more likely to be objective and has a higher standard of reliability. But my point is that for the non-scientist, it is never simply a matter of looking at objective data.
I found that Cockburn's argument against the carbon credit industry, at the least, had some good points. The rest of it I didn't buy, but at this point it's mainly because many more other writers whose opinions I also respect have disagreed. If they were to agree, my opinion would probably be swayed. Maybe this makes me a mindless puppet. Or maybe it's an inevitable result of the specialization of information in our society. I would wager that this is at least partially how even the most well-informed people ultimately make their decisions. I'm just honest enough to admit it.
-
To be fair...
[Read the article: "Hillary equals France"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anti-France sentiment itself is not a uniquely American phenomenon. The British have it in droves, but with them it's more of a simple rivalry rather than some kind of irrational contempt. Our particular brand of Francophobia, which is really a thin veneer for troglodyte anti-intellectualism, is wholly our own and no one else's.
Bill, I'm still mad at you for moving to cable, but I love you nonetheless.
-
Ah, Sugarman, we meet again
[Read the article: Reason to believe: The Cockburn files, Part 2]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're partially right. I should have said "supporters of Israel" rather than just "Israel". Mistake made for the sake of brevity. But if you would seriously deny that this line or argument is used and claim that you have never encountered it (when I know you have at least witnessed your comrade Dayenu make the same argument here), you are a bold-faced liar.
-
This is what we fought for.
[Read the article: An "honor killing" in Iraq, captured by cellphone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we are to believe Christopher Hitchens, the true success story of the Iraq War is Kurdistan, where we have created a peaceful, democratic paradise free from the tyranny and brutality they suffered under Hussein.
This is peace. This is democracy. This is paradise.
How to stop this? Can we build democracy by force? No. Can we eradicate a whole religion? No, even if we tried. The best thing the Western world could have done was to try to mitigate the consequences of the Ottoman Empire's collapse. Instead, we colonized and pillaged its remnants, allowing fundamentalism to take root in our wake. In the early half of the twentieth century, many Muslim nations were budding, if corrupt and chaotic, modern states. Through the actions of Britain, France, America, and subsequently, Israel, we have helped set them back 500 years.