Letters to the Editor
captainlarab
Published Letters: 538 Editor's Choice: 41
-
More parallels to current state of affairs
[Read the article: "Sopranos" wrap-up: The blood-dimmed tide]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of allegories to the current administration, isn't it the Bushies' tendency to compartmentalize one of the most infuriating and reality-avoiding aspects of their existence? Mary Cheney works for her father's reelection campaign, which is premised on the notion that same-sex marriage is a threat to Western civilization, and then neither she nor her father can understand why the media would be curious about the child she plans on raising with her same-sex partner. Wolfowitz rails on third-world corruption from his World Bank pulpit and then can't imagine why it's a problem that he set up his girlfriend with a job that pays better than the Secretary of State's. None of them seem to get why it's a problem that they don't have children serving in Iraq and didn't serve in Vietnam themselves. And they and the Washington Press Corps have no problem whatsoever getting together once a year for a night of drunken revelrie and giggling about missing WMDs. Why? Because they have no ability to see--or choose not to see--that what they do for a living has anything to do with who they are as individuals. I'm sure, just like Tony, any of them would insist that he or she is basically "a good guy."
Man, Washington, DC is the capital of compartmentalization. This is a place where people pride themselves on ripping their political adversaries a new one and then going out for drinks with them afterwards. And to some extent, it's good to compartmentalize; otherwise, we'd be unable to get through our day, much like AJ. But the compartmentalization with the Bushies has gone well past the point of absurdity.
-
AJ as John Walker Lindh
[Read the article: "Sopranos" wrap-up: The blood-dimmed tide]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone else see AJ at this point as a John Walker Lindh type? Wouldn't Islamic fundamentalism lift him out of his funk, give him a purpose, a basis on which to reject the materialism of his surroundings, and most importantly, a father figure? Not to mention lots of new reading material. The rejection by his girlfriend could easily be converted to misogyny. And hell, he's suicidal anyway. They say any of us, at some point in our lives, could be vulnerable to joining a cult. I'd say AJ is there now. And meanwhile, Chris' Al Qaeda friends are out there somewhere, although how they would gain access to and influence AJ within the next two episodes I have no idea.
-
Is there a reason Salon is ignoring Cindy Sheehan?
[Read the article: Memorial Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just wondering. Is it because she said things in her farewell post that are inconvenient to the Democratic Party?
-
Response to Realname r.e. Cindy Sheehan
[Read the article: Memorial Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look, I'm not necessarily a Cindy Sheehan fan; I had been saying for quite some time that there was always a certain danger in putting a grieving parent in charge of making major policy decisions (at least, when it's clear that the person has become an activist as a way of either working through or avoiding dealing with her grief issues). I think there should be some sort of special "free speech zone" around grieving parents so that they can say whatever crazy things they need to say to themselves to get through their day (whether it's "my son died for nothing, George Bush is the devil" or "my son died fighting for Iraqi freedom, God bless George Bush"). At the same time, I think it can be dangerous and more than a little exploitative to organize huge political movements around them.
I just find it odd that Salon has *nothing* to say about her resignation from public life, either good or bad. It's not often I have to go to cnn.com to find out what's going on in the antiwar movement. There seem to be a lot of teaching points in the Cindy Sheehan experience and I'm just surprised that no one at Salon seems to want to talk about them.
-
All the more reason why Sheehan is a teaching point
[Read the article: Memorial Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have always looked at Sheehan as first and foremost a grieving parent. She was a grieving parent, looking for a way for her son's death to acquire some meaning for her, and thought for a while that she had found one. The reason she was initially so effective, and eventually became so ineffective, was that her cause represented the perfect marriage of the personal and political. It is what gave her gravitas. It is also what led her to feel exploited and what eventually caused her to come unglued. Her personal stake in the issue gave her an emotional vulnerability that most politicians and activists simply don't share.
There is so much in her final screed that, however much I have disagreed with her on substantive issues and political tactics (oh, yeah, becoming pals with Hugo Chavez, great move there, Cindy), resonated with me as a recently-more-or-less retired activist myself. All that stuff about Democratic politicians selling us out, activists with huge egos that ultimately operate to the detriment of what we are collectively trying to achieve...that didn't strike a chord with anyone? That didn't sound remotely familiar to any of us who have dabbled in political activism and quickly gotten frustrated?
Isn't there some sort of cautionary tale for activists and would-be activists, about the reality of politics and what it takes to effect real change? Any sort of lessons at all we could draw from this experience? Again, I'm still just stunned that no one in Salon thinks this is an interesting topic to discuss at all.