Letters to the Editor
The Professor
Published Letters: 407 Editor's Choice: 26
-
Please....
[Read the article: Salon Interview: Camille Paglia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]please please give up on your infatuation with Camille Paglia. She's formulaically contrarian, picking topics to write about with a dart and a recent celebrity magazine. She seems to think hypocrisy is a valid political stance (she is neither a democrat nor a republican, she is a hypocrat). She's made a career of looking knowledgeable and intellectual to those who are neither.
-
A haggard christian
[Read the article: Ted Haggard resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm beginning to think of the likes of Haggard, Reed, Bennett, Swaggart, etc. etc. more as charlatans than righty wing-nuts. They are dirven by the desire to use religion merely to accumulate power and wealth. They cheat, they lie, they gamble, they fuck the wrong people, but with enough power you can do those things while telling others not to. They are no more 'religious leaders' than snake-oil salesmen were scientists. As an atheist, I still retain respect for those I consider true religious leaders, the new Episcopal head, some heads of seminaries, and mainstream theologians, many of whom adhere to the principles of compassion, tolerance and social justice.
-
Big tent circus
[Read the article: Lost faith in the GOP]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The threads of this discussion all point in one direction: progressivism is stronger the more people who are committed to it. It does no good to exclude all believers because of the vileness of a subgroup. Though an atheist, bi-sexual, commie, I have at least two good friends who are deeply christian, one the daughter of a minister and the other a lutheran pastor. They are committeed to protecting the earth, stopping war, pushing social justice, fighting greed, etc. On the side of the angels, so to speak. Progressives/lefties cannot afford to push such people away. When one of them announced to me that he was 'pro-life' (his code for anti-choice) we had a long and useful discussion about how many on the 'pro-choice' side were also 'pro-life' in the sense that they do feel abortion is a sad, tragic event in the lives of those who have to resort to it. (strangely, many in the anti-choice camp do not understand this about those who are pro-choice). No one is 'pro-abortion' any more than someone is 'pro-divorce' or 'pro-adultry' just because they feel divorce and adultry shouldn't be illegal. This friend is also in favor of birth control and good, full, sex ed in school. There is a great deal of middle ground to be found in supporting public policy that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (free birth control, comprehensive sex ed, etc), or create an econmoic environment where people can afford to have a child (good, cheap child-care, good jobs, etc.).
There is less middle-ground on the question of gay rights. At least that is largely a generational issue, and we just have to wait around a while for a lot of people to shuffle off this mortal coil, or at least stop voting.
-
A hope
[Read the article: Lieberman won't rule out switching parties]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A nice story line, though perhaps not likely, would be for Lieberman to switch parties, then have a couple days of hoopla for republicans, followed by the announcement that Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe were switching to the democratic side. One step back, two steps forward.
-
Ahem
[Read the article: Flying the boob-hating skies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's make a distinction here.
pooping/peeing-related activities --> in private
masturbation/sex --> in private
eating/basic child care --> in public
So, to which catagory of activities does breast-feeding belong?
-
Get them
[Read the article: Shocking incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, what we need to do is round up all the annoying people - the whiners, the entitled, the drama queens - and taser them, because they deserve it. Yes, in a just world, all the people we don't like would be caused extreme pain, just because, you know? Some of you will think we should wait until such people are a physical threat. But you just never know when an annoying person without proper library ID will throw a book or something. Or start nursing a baby.
-
Religion and politics
[Read the article: Left turn at Saddleback Church]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Obama and others seem to be up to is driving a wedge between right-wingers who turn to religion for political purposes and the religious who turn to politics to express deep moral concerns. I've always felt the most vocal 'Christaian conservatives' were conservatives first (homophobic, misogynistic, greedy etc.) and Christian second, and Christian only as a political power-play (cf the Kuo story). That group is highly influential regarding broad Christian voting patterns, despite the fact that they are a tiny minority of Christians in the US. Too many American Christians have bought into a myth that to be a good Christian they must vote republican. However, if progressives like Obama can cut those politically-driven Christian conservatives away from the general community of evangelicals who by-and-large care more about fighting greed, poverty, and pollution than gay marriage, there could be a sea-change in voting patterns.
-
An opportunity?
[Read the article: Left turn at Saddleback Church]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Responding to Don's "we should let neither the screeching greedmongers of the right, nor the gay activists of the left prevent that": Why do we need to equate 'screeching greedmongers' with gay activists? Are those fighting for the rights of gays and lesbians to love, to marry, to avoid discrimination, really equivalent to 'screeching greedmongers' (a wonderful phrase, by the way)? Most of the gay activists I know are far more Christian than I am (which doesn't take much), and many are committed to finding ways to be recogized by their churches, and have their unions blessed. Does that push them outside the bounds of this 'opportunity' to find common ground between liberals and evangelicals?