Letters to the Editor
-Mona-
Published Letters: 881 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Must it not be a joke?
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.
I've spent a few hours trying to pick my jaw up from my computer desk. For a journalist to write that is like, well, a doctor saying what you don't know can't hurt you, so let's just not run any tests.
-
Bush's religiosity is likely real
[Read the article: A tragic legacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Few people on the planet dislike George Bush than I do, but I am thoroughly convinced his religious conversion was genuine. It is nothing more than an example of the pragmatic use of religion as a substitute for addictions and other harmful behaviors, as first explicated by the late 19th century psychologist William James, whose ideas the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous (and all the XA offshoots) directly and explicitly drew on. Bush clearly quit a lifestyle of alcohol and drug addiction, carousing etc., and he did it via religious conversion, which is also how that works in the XA programs. It is just he doesn't submit himself to the "Higher Power" of XA, but rather to the Jesus Christ of Evangelical Xianity.
The particular brand of religion converted to does not matter for purposes of becoming the substitute, but Bush's evangelical, Manichean worldview has horrible consequences when carried over into political philosophy and makes him easily receptive to neocon and other Good v. Evil systems. And the fact that he conquered his addictions really is an example and indicator of William James' theses in practice. (James was a pragmatist, and didn't discover that any particular religion had to be adopted, and isolated examples of people overcoming destructive behaviors in many different faiths.)
-
@Emyth and others mistakenly criticizing Glenn's use of the term Manicheanism
[Read the article: A tragic legacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Writes Emyth So, Mr. Greenwald, please identify the Bush "Good vs. Evil" Dualism for what it really is... Call it just that - "Dualism". It is a simple, fifth or sixth-grade word that more people will understand. It will help you get your point across.
All emphasis mine:
Man·i·chae·ism(mn-kzm) also Man·i·chae·an·ism (-k-nzm)
n.
1. The syncretic, dualistic religious philosophy taught by the Persian prophet Manes, combining elements of Zoroastrian, Christian, and Gnostic thought and opposed by the imperial Roman government, Neo-Platonist philosophers, and orthodox Christians.
2. A dualistic philosophy dividing the world between good and evil principles or regarding matter as intrinsically evil and mind as intrinsically good.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Manichaeism
-
@Emyth
[Read the article: A tragic legacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As it happens I have long been out of an undergraduate program, but when I was, my major was religious studies. I am reasonably well familiar with the ancient dualisms and how they resurfaced to somewhat inform Early-Christian era Manicheanism. That syncretism thing you know; it happens.
Myself, I find one must be careful with wiki. I've sometimes relied on it, but usually only when I independenly know the information to be accurate.
-
Podhoretz: Reagan was Neville chamberlain
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is from a collection of quotes I have, but I unfortunately failed to save the link; however, I well recall when Podhoretz did utter this insane bullspit:
Most importantly, Reagan took the opposite course from the neocons in relation to the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev pursuing a conciliatory strategy toward disarmament and eventual liberalization as opposed to one of confrontation and rearmament. Reagan had made his most decisive break with the neocons in 1983 when he refused to remain engaged in the civil war in Lebanon and was at the same time generally indifferent to Israel. Many neocons became furious with Reagan for all of these reasons, most infamously, Norman Podhoretz came to liken him to Neville Chamberlain.
-
If "Bush is NOT Manichean"
[Read the article: A tragic legacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tell it to me, Greenwald, many scholars of religion, and David Niewert I quote here, my emphasis:
A sort of reciprocal danger arises when someone like George W. Bush makes overt political appeals to the fundamentalist views of his followers -- particularly in portraying himself as receiving divine guidance. This gives him not only a kind of immunity from fault, giving his every step the Lord's imprimatur, but places him in a charismatic position of dual political and religious leadership. It has the effect of leading individual followers to identify their religious beliefs with Bush's political agenda. It also draws the entire fundamentalist bloc behind him politically. This includes the proto-fascist element, whose impact, as we've seen, can far outweigh their numbers. The more we hear talk about Bush leading a national political and religious rebirth, the more we approach the conditions needed for a genuine fascism to arise.
The Manichean dualism -- the cut-and-dried black-and-white worldview -- that is the essence of the totalist mindset is especially evident among fundamentalists. This has the potential to make them, in many ways, ideal footsoldiers for a kind of Christo-fascism, one which backs theocratic impulses and right-wing extremism with actual political power. In the wake of a severe social disturbance like Sept. 11, this kind of dualism's appeal is potent.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismxiii.php
-
@Karen M.
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey Karen M. Good move on the Helen Thomas interview suggestion. Upthread you had asked me and/or others to explain the difference between Persians and Arabs. Now, I am NOT an expert, but this the nutshell version I know. An Arab-American friend of mine has long been p*ssed off at being identified with Iran, which is mostly Persian, is ancient, older than Arabs or Islam, and had enclaves in China, Rome, among the Aztecs, Greeks, and ancient Egyptians. Many Persians are Muslims, but by no means all. (But that is also true of Arabs -- it gets complicated!)
As best I can tell, considering Persians and Arabs fungible is like thinking Italians and the British are the same, because they are both European. Language is one big difference; Persian influence on language has been enormous and of ancient vintage.