Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
loyalty
[Read the article: Rum, Romanism and James Carville]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, and as to those who've pointed out that Carville wasn't speaking in political terms, but rather personal ones, that's a convincing argument. Point taken.
If he meant that Richardson made a specific promise to Clinton that he then violated, then that argues against my "ethos" thesis.
If Carville was speaking in more general terms, believing that somehow the longstanding relationship between the Clintons and Richardson somehow obligated Richardson to neutrality or support, then my thesis stands.
-
@ MaddieP
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd like to echo your sentiments and your effort to reach out to people like Maturity, for the sake of us all.
I also see no "black separatism" in Obama's perspective, but rather the expression of what I'd imagine to be a fairly mainstream point of view among "the black community," though I admit this is a rather dubious phrase and is more a part of the problem than the solution.
It's exceedingly complex, at any rate, and that's the point.
Fwiw, I am 35-year old black male, working on a Ph.D. in history and in most ways do not consider myself representative of "the black community." But in some ways I do. The resentments, feelings of mistrust towards America, its government, its revisionist history, etc., are, I'd argue, common to most if not all black people, regardless of class or background.
Anyway, there's an endless path of mutual discovery and of self-discovery just waiting to take place, and I believe fervently, as Obama does, that only through taking up the challenge to actually practice empathy, will we be able to accomplish the things we want, like accessible education, health care, etc.
So Maddie, yes, I'm in. I can only hope that people like Maturity are as well, for all our sakes.
-
@ XH
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you so much for posting that letter from Ms. Walsh.
I really appreciate it, although, frankly, I've not really been concerned about where he allegiances lie.
I'm far more concerned about the fact that she fails to give the issues she's written about of late the probing attention they deserve.
Her treatment of the Wright business in particular indicates to me that she's part of the problem, which is sad.
She's made reference to her own work in "bridging the racial divide" (I believe this was her phrase), but her handling of the issue, as I've seen it, is so superficial as to be dangerous.
Better to say nothing than to treat such a profoundly consequential topic with intellectual negligence.
So, Joan, Ms. Walsh, with humblest and sincerest respect, I urge you to spend more time thinking and less time writing.
Obama's speech was a bonanza of material, enough for many serious essays. If you really care about race (and I take you at your word), then demonstrate that concern by leading the way here.
In your role as editor you have the power to take up the challenges Obama has taxed us all with.
Or, if you feel his speech was actually unworthy of serious consideration, perhaps you could exegete it for us so we know what, precisely, you disagree with.
Yes, that's it; more exegesis. That way, we're all talking about the same text and it allows us to really discuss.
Why not run the place more like a seminar, I guess I'm asking, at least with respect to those topics that merit real analysis and contemplation.
-
Ok
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A couple of things.
One: Has there been any serious discussion about the premise of the Bosnia "lie?"
Before the issue of whether Clinton "lied" or not should be of consequence, we need to establish that she lied about something consequential.
Now, Clinton's claim to have evaded sniper fire was supporting evidence of what, exactly?
Of her readiness to be commander-in-chief or of her "experience" on the world stage?
Something like that, right?
Has anyone bothered to question the premise, to ask, ok, you evaded sniper fire, therefore...?
Because to me this is a fundamental problem with the media: they lack the capacity or the will or both to actually consider the merits of an argument.
Shouldn't every journalist worth their salt ask a version of, "Ok, so Senator Clinton, you evaded sniper fire in Bosnia. Why are you telling us this? This qualifies you how, exactly, and for what, specifically?
If this basic job were done, we wouldn't be talking about the lie because (as I see it), the whole anecdote would have been revealed as a nonsequitur in Clinton's argument about "experience."
Or, perhaps it really does qualify he in some unique way, like helping her appear to idiots as if she can match John McCain's combat experience and thus, is likewise qualified to be commander-in-chief.
Here's my point: so far as I can see, we never even had the requisite discussion as to the relevance of the claim in the first place, but when that claim is revealed to be inaccurate, we dissect it for days.
Why is that?
Oh, and the second question, this one for Joan: The horse race aspect to the campaigns is saturated with usually unsubstantiated claims and speculations as to which gaffe will "hurt," which move will "help," how much, whether the damage will be lasting, etc.
My question is, what are the criteria journalists and pundits use to make these assessments? Are they (you, in this case, Joan) appealing to common sense, or to some unrevealed data, or to intuition formed by experience with past campaigns?
I think it would do your readers a service, Joan (or at least it would do me a service) if you were more transparent about your methodology.
Not to single you out, by any means; anyone who writes analysis and draws conclusions should be upfront about their methodology.
Thank you.