Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1197 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Thanks, rufus!
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're probably right. It's hard, though, because I really want to make connections, you know? I want to understand how people think and to at least try to find some common ground, some shared reality.
But you're probably right, which might account for the fact that I get few responses when I try to engage.
But still, every now and again some progress/mutual understanding can be attained, and that's worth the price of admission.
(If only the more disingenuous, divide-and-conquer types would be above board, things would be so much easier. Alas, this is the world as it is.)
But no!
The whole point of Obama's campaign is that we not simply throw up our hands and exchange spitballs and insults from our respective corners. We have to see one another as human beings, not enemies.
As Joan says, it's a tall order, undoubtedly.
But what's the alternative?
-
@ Picko
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Indeed.
-
@ marklee
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate it.
-
@ RC
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I guess every generation needs to learn it for themselves."
If the lesson's worth learning, it damned well better be.
Would you have it any other way?
-
@ ruffissama
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Don't flatter yourself into thinking you are unique.Its'a self centered phase we all experience."
Sounds like you have some serious unresolved issues about your own past.
I'm sorry you're carrying around so much bitterness you have to mock people for having stars in their eyes, as you call it.
That's pretty ugly.
-
@ RC
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I guess the question each of us must answer is do we want to take the risk now when so much is at stake or do we want to dig ourselves out of the hole we are in first. I know there will always be risks, but a little peace and prosperity might make it a little more palatable."
I think the other problem is that we're talking past each other inasmuch as many of us Obama supporters believe that both Clintons were complicit in digging the hole in the first place.
For me, part of voting for Obama is as a repudiation of Clintonism, which I view as part of the problem, not the solution.
I hereby swear and affirm that, had not Clinton spent his years selling out classic liberalism, the Bush years would not have been so successful.
I think that by helping to move the center to the right, Clinton made it that much easier for the right wing to appear within the realm of normal.
Clinton's continuing the trend inasmuch as she appropriates the rightwing world view in which fearmongering is a central premise of one's campaign.
-
@ RC
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's a small example of what I'm talking about.
Clinton is now talking about ending the war on science, right?
This is a big thing of hers. George Bush is against science.
But Clinton's own husband, Bill, laid the groundwork for this war on science in at least two ways that spring to mind: 1) Lani Guinier; 2) Joycelen Elders.
Both people Clinton repudiated for political reasons when their respective science was assailed by the right.
Lani Guinier's science had to do with electoral reform and Joycelen Elders', with AIDS prevention.
Do you see how normalizing such politics, i.e., capitulating on issues like these might have helped lend credence to the very notion that "science" should be politicized?
This is one example where I see Clinton/Bush on a continuum.
CAn you at least appreciate this argument?
-
RC
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good question.
I guess Carter. I don't know much about his administration, but it probably qualifies. Otherwise, LBJ.
Why do you ask?
-
@ juneausmog
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why don't you read what I wrote and make an honest effort to understand my point of view.
You say you really don't understand but you offer no evidence that you've made an effort to understand.
Try to use your imagination.
I'm happy to try to communicate to you, but you've got to make an effort.
-
@ Picko
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hats off, Picko.
Perfectly articulated.
Thank you.
-
@ Joan
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure exactly what you mean about my anger getting the best of me, but sure, I'm certainly frustrated.
As to not knowing about the Carter administration, well, it's easy, I'm not an Americanist, but a medievalist. What that means is that, re: the Carter administration, I basically know what I've picked up over the years as a reasonably informed citizen and in secondary school.
I've never studied American politics systematically, is all I mean, but have basically a "popular" grasp of it. I have confidence in a lot of the conclusions I've drawn based on the evidence I have gathered, but I don't want to overstate my expertise and am happy to defer to someone who has more.
Was there a particular lesson about the Carter administration that you think I've not learned?
I'm not sure what you're getting at...
-
@ rufus
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Frankly, I'm not interested in learning about "the GOP" in order to defeat them, but because I believe that zero-sum, mutually assured destruction is madness.
I'm after human connections and honest interactions. Of course, I'd love to persuade people regarding particular political agendas, but that's really not my primary concern.
I'm not a huckster and I don't like to shill.
I just believe we're all in this together and that unless we learn to get along, we'll blow ourselves up as one.
It's important to me that we respect and not dehumanize one another or reduce one another to caricatures.
That's my ultimate goal.
-
@ Win All
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I question his judgment as to the people he has associated with
Can you elaborate on this?
What, exactly, is the nature of your concern?
Can you provide me with a sort of doomsday scenario we might anticipate, granting your premise that his judgment of associates is questionable?
I hear a lot of people repeat this concern, but I've never actually seen it developed into anything resembling a serious argument.
If you have an argument to make, please make it, because I'm all ears and open to being convinced.