Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ Fester
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"When Salon posted all three economic plans from Obama, Hillary, and McCain, I thought that was really cool. The letter count was really low. (Obama's plan got 92 letters). Stuff like sexism v racism racks up hundreds of letters."
This is such a good point. I wonder whether it's a question of expertise.
I think people who don't know what they're talking about are far less likely to venture opinions about issues like economics, but when it comes to issues like racism or sexism (so-called hot-button issues), everyone's an expert.
This is really dismaying to me, because I see no reason why racism and sexism aren't deserving of the same level of respect as economics, meaning there's a modicum of deference to the expertise of others and a basic awareness of one's own ignorance or gaps.
Is it because economics is a field dominated (at least traditionally, I'd suspect it still is) by your standard-issue white male, whereas gender and race are usually covered academically by females and minorities and who wants to defer to them, anyway?
This is why Joan's treatment of the Wright business infuriated me. Her shallow, negligent treatment of the subject set the tone and shallow, negligent treatment is what we got in the comments.
It's got to begin at the top. If Joan wrote as carefully and thoughtfully about these issues as others do about economics, etc., then perhaps we'd see fewer but higher quality comments overall on these threads as well.
-
@ celia, ep
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cheers! (I tried to stay away, ep, but something about moths and flames...no, seriously, I step away because the acrimony becomes unbearable, and more so the down-the-rabbit-hole-style acrimony, where the ground shifts endlessly to no apparent purpose. Ultimately, though, the opportunity to connect with a wide array of people about matters of consequence is something I feel is something of a civic duty, incumbent upon us all, so here I am.)
"Thank you for your kind response. That- and the thoughtful discussion that has emerged here - makes me feel a little less squeamish about joining the discourse. I love the conversation but I get agita from flame wars and tend to recede...."
Me too. I walk around tense and feeling not at peace. It can be unhealthy.
"The idea that because we had been wounded- and no doubt we had (but not by Iraq) is justification to lash out in anger with threats and actual violence. It is a frightening and dangerous concept."
Agreed. Watching the lemmings all trip over one another going over the side was something to behold. We saw mass hysteria in action.
It was a great lesson, though. For my, anyway, it taught me just how human all those politicians are. I don't think they all voted for the war for political reasons. I think many of them were genuinely frightened, along with their constituents. In Clinton's case, there was no upside to her voting against the authorization, so I doubt she actually bothered to rack her conscience over that one, but rather took the easy way out.
Which is precisely why I don't understand the argument that she should be president. Really, I share Obama's analysis that when the country needed her most--needed someone most, she sure as hell didn't step up, and now she wants to be president?
"That is not to say there is no place for self defense or even the projection of power. But we can't run around justifying murder and recklessness because we have been brutalized. It only creates more brutality. The zero sum game as you put it. That is why I can't support anyone who supported the war."
Ah, but you will vote for her in the end. I'm not there yet. If by some miracle she winds up on the ballet in November I'll be hard-pressed to vote for her. It could happen, but it'll take some herculean convincing before I'd commit to that.
"That is why I (another feminist woman to be added to the list!) support Obama. He really seems to represent another path."
No kidding. To stereotype here, Obama's much more "female" in his apparent focus on consensus-building over total victory. That's really flip, I know, but there it is.
He clearly represents another path. The fact he was able to stand up there and be honest about race was the instantiation of that different path.
If only people would actually listen to what he said, they'd see that.
In short, the different path was that he didn't offer an either/or resolution.
He explained how complex the situation is and that there's no easy answer, but that a prerequisite is coming out of our corners and resisting the urge, the primal urge, to retreat.
And that's not about race, that's about his entire ethos of politics.
His wife talks about it too, about getting out of one's comfort zone.
We've seen the alternative, it's a Rovian, Clintonian universe and frankly, I want no part of it.
We can only remain divided if we let ourselves remain divided, but it's up to each of us to figure out what we can do to overcome these divisions.
It's not a spectator sport; Obama's asking something from us.
Clinton asks nothing from us, but offers us the moon instead, a nice fat goody basket that there's little reason to believe she can deliver.
Sigh.