Letters to the Editor
Amity
Published Letters: 1110 Editor's Choice: 106
-
Encouraging Sign
[Read the article: I resent my fiancé because he is rich]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While nobody would ever claim that living as though poor when one has access to wealth is the actual same thing as being poor, it's encouraging that Resentful's fiancé seems to have some of the same issues with his money as she does. At the very least, he has issues of his own, or he wouldn't be living like a schlub.
But having issues is bad, right? How is that a good sign? Because it means that he doesn't take his resources for granted. He sounds like the kind of guy who has questions about wealth and class that he hasn't answered yet, and wants to explore how life works on his own terms. He may very well want to live without all that crap hanging over his head, protecting him and insulating him and keeping away from the world's sharp edges. Maybe he treats his privileged upbringing like it doesn't mean much because he wants it to not mean much — he wants, perhaps on some level, to spend some time earning his way in the world like everyone else.
So what can Resentful do about it? Yes, talking about it is key. Americans hate talking about wealth, but that doesn't make it go away. Silent fuming over class differences has brought down more than just marriages.
But Resentful might need to do more than that — perhaps insist on dedicating part their married life to living within her means, not his. Or his family's money needs to only ever be used for certain purposes — the kids' education, or certain charitable work, or whatever. Couples do this sort of thing all the time: 5 years living where she wants, then they move where he wants. Or you can't decide between 1 and 3 kids and compromise at 2. Marriage can be like horse-trading that way. It's not romantic, but it's love.
-
Unusual Interest
[Read the article: Ahmadinejad, big man on campus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As nice as it is to see so many young people appearing to be suddenly interested in geopolitics and public discourse, it doesn't seem likely that the same number of people will turn out to hear Mikheil Saakashvili — nearly as controversial and assuredly much more interesting to listen to — or any of Columbia's other lecturers.
What they were there to do, of course, was participate in a ritual of demonization — one in which Bollinger played a gleeful leading role, bringing disgrace on himself and the university he supposedly represents.
The real Ahmadinejad is a remarkably uninteresting figure who has never said or done most of the things attributed to him. In this respect, perhaps ironically or perhaps not, he shares the most in common with none other than the American president.
Ahmadinejad's stature has been artificially inflated — filled with light but voluminous fluff spun from exaggerations, mistranslations, distortions and outright lies — so that he will become larger than life. Only once he has been puffed out to epic, sinister proportions can his intended fiery, explosive demise, like that of Zozobra, bring the transient satisfaction that those who watch and cheer so desire.
But Zozobra is an effigy made of wood and fabric, and Ahmadinejad, however ridiculous, is both smaller and more complex than that. Of course the ones entranced by war don't want to hear him speak — they want to hear each other speak about him, a tidy arrangement that can only be disrupted by the unimpressive reality of the man.
-
Question Clinton's motives and sincerity?
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, one can question the motives and sincerity of her doing all of this.
I don't see why it's necessary to question Clinton's motives and sincerity. She is sincerely motivated to become President of the United States (which is more than could be said for the last couple of Democratic candidates.)
You want something more? Some promise of ideological purity? It's the nature of politicians to run around with their finger in the air. If you want them to change their views, change which way the wind is blowing.
And that's exactly what Clinton is responding to. That's good. We want that, remember? No, if elected she won't do everything you ask for. But the great thing about being a Democrat right now is that you have a whole field of candidates who are all very willing to listen.
-
Yeah, but, was it true?
[Read the article: Playing hardball: The Clinton campaign vs. GQ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just because GQ wants to run a story about infighting in the Clinton campaign doesn't make it true.
Just because Clinton doesn't want GQ to run a story about infighting in the Clinton campaign also doesn't make it true.
See, I don't know if you all have noticed, but the press has a thing about taking (or making up) Clinton stories and blowing them up to huge proportions. I know, it's hard to believe, but if you look back over the events of Clinton's husband's administration you may just be able to detect the faint signs of this subtle but persistent tendency.
(They did it once or twice to Al Gore and John Kerry, as some of you may remember — minor little issues, of course, like war, peace, military service, energy, the national economy, truth, lies, and ecological apocalypse ... but I don't want to be accused of being a nit-picker.)
So Clinton fights back. This is a surprise? Her husband blackmailed Bush père with pictures of Bush with his mistress to get Bush to stop the Gennyfer Flowers scandal, which promptly died in the press immediately thereafter. It's how you combat the slander machine, and how you win.
If you really want to know if there's scandalous infighting going on in the Clinton campaign, don't ask GQ. Write to Joan Walsh and get her to have Salon investigate. I predict that there's no "there" there, and other issues (surrounding Clinton, and in general) deserve more critical attention.