Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ Wahle Peoples
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You want despair?
Rent "No End in Sight."
Or maybe rage.
Either way, we are in quite a pickle.
Oh, and then there's climate change, the macdaddy of all pickles.
Hold on to your hats.
-
@prabhata
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Would you mind fleshing out your argument for us?
What's the nature of the problem, as you see it?
You assert "the problem" as if it's self-evident, but it's not.
I, for one, am interested in what you mean, exactly.
-
@ sesanders
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you so much for your response!
I can appreciate your discomfort with the fire and brimstone thing.
Not much I can say about that other than I share it myself, but in this context it just doesn't alarm me. If Wright had been ranting about striking down faggots or niggers or communists, I'd be alarmed, but not for the brimstone per se, but the hatred, especially because in my example, that's rhetoric that pretty directly leads to physical violence.
I think it's more rational to fear such things because when open season is declared on marginalized people, broken individuals actually do take up the call and beat and harass and dehumanize such people.
In the case of Wright (and admittedly, I've not watched the sermon), I just don't see any realistic danger of such words translating themselves to violent recriminations. But I do fear such anger because yes, I do tend to associate anger with violence, largely because of my own history being harassed, dehumanized and assaulted.
So for me, there's a genuine difference in context.
Not for you, I guess. FAir enough, but I'd humbly encourage you to consider that maybe there's a significant difference.
Maybe there isn't, but I do think it merits deliberation, if you'd care to do that.
Again, thanks for responding. It's important that we keep talking and perhaps over time, we'll come to some kind of honorable consensus on the matter, each one of us having learned something from the other.
May I ask for more details about the sort of church you're referring to, if you feel comfortable sharing?
For my part, I'm an Episcopalian and if you know anything about the Episcopal church, you'll know it's the polar opposite of fire-and-brimstone, so for what it's worth, I do understand your discomfort. I share it myself.
-
@ billcap
[Read the article: "It is possible ... that she misspoke"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for responding.
Sorry, the "shower of bullets" line was just me being facetious, not about Clinton, but about the whole story and the way it's spun out of control. It was more a dig at the media than anything else. But point taken, I'll be more careful next time.
"I think there's no doubt that Hillary has more experience in meeting with foreign dignitaries in both formal and informal settings, in both ceremonial (mostly) and substantive (far less often), than Obama."
Fair enough, but again, down to the nitty-gritty, what is this experience worth, especially in light of the 3am phone call, which seems to suggest a skill-set beyond simply travelling and meeting with foreign dignitaries.
Is this a fair characterization?
"The bar is prett low on that. I think she has a better starting point than he does. Do I think it matters much? On the big scale, no. I think it's slight advantage to Hillary on that one. Not a completely unimportant facet, but not a major one, not a major advantage, and certainly not one that I believe Obama incapable of catching quickly up on (unlike Bush--who had no foreign experience but also lacked the sense of curiosity, empathy, or intellectualism to do anything about it). And also not one that will work in a general against McCain (though it does diminish his argument slightly more than Obama would)."
Thank you. This sounds honest and considered to me, and I agree.
But you see? You just wrote in that one paragraph something that should have dispelled this whole non-issue in two minutes.
That was my point: here we are dickering over nonsense because the media refuses to do its job instead of having a substantive conversation.
We get caught up in the bullshit because...because...why, exactly?
If we resist getting drawn into the bullshit, we can actually have meaningful conversations and attempt to choose a president based on legitimate criteria.
That's all my point is.
Thanks again for your response. It was thoughtful and I agree with most of it.
The one thing I'd suggest is that Obama's "inexperience," the not being in Washington thing might be more significant than you give it credit for being. It's legitimately arguable, at any rate.
See you around and thanks again for honest engagement.
-
@ billcap
[Read the article: "It is possible ... that she misspoke"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, and btw, in the interests of full disclosure, while I'm less inclined to be roused to indignation by some of this stuff, I do actually believe that "Clinton will say anything to get elected" or that she's more cut-throat than Obama or more nakedly driven by a thirst for power, or however you want to characterize it.
I try not to fall into knee-jerk responses where every little thing confirms my prejudices, but frankly, a lot of evidence has amassed and at this point I'm pretty convinced my assessment is basically accurate.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, though. I am an historian and as such, try to remain committed to empiricism and intellectual honesty, though of course I have my blind spots as we all do.
But you seem the kind of person who might help keep me honest, so I'll keep my eyes open for your voice in the future.