Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1197 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ pyrrho
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you so much for your response, pyrrho.
"Fair enough but Dr. Rhyme's statements don't make much sense to me. My sensitivity has a practical component to it and I can't understand what Dr. Rhyme is proposing."
I get this, and this is important. I'm suggesting precisely that you make an effort to factor out the "practical component" and find a perspective from which you can usefully understand or at least attempt to, what is being said.
I'm not saying its easy, but I think it's urgently necessary, on all our parts. To me it's how we practice empathy and I believe that there can be no pursuit of justice without an attendant pursuit of empathy.
They're inextricably connected, in my view.
"By the way, I did differentiate between your comments and Dr. Rhyme's."
You did, except the initial quote. Anyway, that's not that important.
"Sounds like we want the same thing but from disparate points of view."
I'm glad to hear you say that! That's heartening.
I want justice for everyone and so do you.
I take you at your word that you want justice for everyone. And yes, so do I. See? Common ground!
"Less finger pointing and more action on helping those who need help."
I don't think that "action" and "finger pointing" is mutually exclusive.
To me, "finger pointing" is nothing more than keeping track of results and demanding accountability, in many spheres. "Finger pointing" can be nothing more than crying, "This is unjust!"
If you're working for justice, you have to recognize it when you see it, don't you? Of course there are degrees of justice and lots of factors determining how and when we pursue justice, and whether justice is measured in the immediate or short term, or the long term, etc.
I don't presume to have solved the problem of justice, but I try. I earnestly try.
The point being, I guess that's what this whole issue boils down to: notions of justice.
I just wish we could cut to the quick of the matter rather than fucking around in the weeds.
"Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth. I must say that looking at where we are now I don't have much hope. Now I'm getting maudlin."
I don't have much hope either.
This is maybe one of the reasons for my anger with Joan. She's giving me evidence for cynicism.
I don't like being cynical and have a real tendency towards it. It's the flip side of idealism.
I think on some level I resent Joan for playing to my cynicism.
But in fairness, that's my issue and I can't fault Joan personally for that. Still, I don't think that accounts for my harsh criticism of her, which isn't based on how she makes me feel, but rather how she practices her craft which I believe is a sacred trust and not to be trifled with.
I'd be interested in hearing your ideas of justice, if you'd care to share them. Otherwise, thanks again for the humane reply.
Shame we can't discuss this over a few bottles of wine. I am much more emphathetic in person and rarely have meet anyone I don't like. I am sure I would find Jeremiah Wright likeable as well despite his recent theatrics. Whatever the outcome for Obama I will still vote for him.
-
@ pyrrho
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, yeah, and the wine sounds fabulous! It's a date.
-
@ happychicken
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Example: What bugged me so much about Bush's war was the whole "war of choice" argument. As a country, we are supposed to only go to war when we absolutely have to. And the reason for that is the moral weight of that decision to go to war. Yes, our own citizens die, and that's very important. But we also ask them to kill civilians, and civilians were killed. I'd like to be able to talk about that as a moderate American (and patriotic! Without making a fuss.) But I'm sure I couldn't last month without being labeled extreme. I wonder if, post-Wright tirade, I can now..."
Agreed, wholeheartedly. The chilling effect this whole affair has had upon the notion of "respectable discourse" is what's so grievous to me as a liberal.
Liberalism depends upon a full range of opinion and ideas being considered in the public sphere.
Obama's Philadelphia response to Wright was miraculous in the degree to which Obama sought to expand the range of public discourse, to ask the mainstream culture to at least know about, and hopefully appreciate, an entire spectrum of opinion.
What was amazing was how this incorporated two otherwise not very connected "constituencies." The black congregation of Obama's church (and by extension, in "the black church," barber shop, etc.).
Obama tried to articulate that Wright is not some loan wacko, but that he represents a very mainstream of opinion among certain segments. Obama focused on "the black community," but he might well have added, "the liberal community."
Wright's critique of America was not a black critique of America, but a liberal one. Very mild and even cliched on the liberal spectrum, I would argue.
But today there was none of that. Obama tried to address the issue in a way that encouraged us to understand one another and maybe learn something, but ultimately was forced to the customary binary.
Wright=Bad.
I do not equal Wright.
Whoo, problem solved. That was a close one. Wright's views that the war was wrong (or what the fuck ever) were outlandish and offensive. That was close, I almost had to get real mad that someone was dissing my country.
It makes me want to throw up.
In America, we get the government we deserve.