Letters to the Editor
Zach B.
Published Letters: 14 Editor's Choice: 1
-
DryEyeBall has it right
[Read the article: Carl Levin reveals the Democrats' Iraq "strategy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The first fact to consider in this emotionally charged debate (see the sarcastic, ironic post from Anonymous) is this: the Iraq war and the entire response to 9/11 has been domestic politics. The reason why the occupation and now the surge failed to produce a viable political institution in Iraq is because that was never the goal. The goal has always been and continues to be hegemonic political control of the institutions of government in the US. So the answer to the question, "is it all George Bush's fault" is "yes": Bush and his subordinates correctly see a never-ending war as the way to maintain their party's control over the government. They can do this because everyone takes for granted that the Republican party is founded on hard-nosed masculine realism that will assume responsibility for protecting the world from evil -- even if that evil is demonstrably the result of their actions.
The National Democrats accept this world view. That's why they lack party unity -- they all overtly or covertly want a masculine, anti-intellectual, commonsense leader whose instincts demonstrate charisma and power. But conservatives broadly and Rovian Republicans specifically have been successful in equating American military might with moral righteousness and equating the military ("support the troops") with conservative/Republican personalities. The current Democrat strategy is either to wait out complete conservative/Republican failure, or to take control of government and take the "International War on Terror" to previously un-thought-of heights in order to get a reputation for hard-nosed realism.
I'm not worried about Bush's attacks on the constitution -- I'm worried what will happen to privacy and due process if a democrat is elected who will get a free pass from the left as they radically expand on what Bush has already done.
-
market morals
[Read the article: Creepy panties for the 'tweens on your list]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It shouldn't be news to anyone who reads this blog that women under Patriarchy are sexual commodities. Read any Jane Austin novel for all the evidence you need. And though feminism has made much progress promoting the idea that women are subjects (actors with free agency), feminism hasn't replaced Patriarchy. If it had we as a nation might not be embroiled in wasteful imperial adventures and debating how much torture is acceptable. But here's the rub -- as long as "acting" is understood through Patriarchy it will remain a male gendered activity. And for every feminist who is a fair trade, vegan, low-impact horticulturalist there is a feminist (e.g. Camile Paglia) who believes in free markets, luxury consumer goods, and "shop therapy." The ideal consumer is implicitly male -- the unseen eye that consumes real or symbolic products is a man's eye -- and women who consume are enjoying a male-type power of controlling (and wasting) resources as proof of agency. This brings me to the conclusion: markets need both subjects (typed male) and objects (typed female); moreover, markets work by finding new resources to exploit for profit. It is only logical then that all objects (female) should be commodified, and what more natural and ready-to-hand commodity is there than newly pubescent girls? It's not as if no female under 18 ever got married or had babies. Juliette of Shakespeare's play was 13. Under the logic of Patriarchal capitalism as soon as women enter the symbolic world of agency (connected with the idea of adulthood) they will become sexual commodities.
-
Emotional intelligence
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's not get too gung-ho for Reason. Though it is a useful analytical tool, it's not the only one, and it may not be the best all the time. I certainly hated the Decider saying he disdains reason and only thinks with his "gut", but none of us, not one of us, can be affected (in the literal sense) by a leader if they don't strike a spark in our soul -- and that means our affective soul, our emotions. It is disgraceful that the mainstream media try to pander to our basest emotions -- fear and hatred -- but that does not invalidate emotional reasoning tout court. If Matt Drudge and his like can sling hate -- and it's proven to be effective -- why can't progressive reporters offer hope? Who can say they don't get a surge of good feeling when they hear the words (narrated by Morgan Freeman), "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal..."? The language there, though partaking in Enlightenment pretensions to rationality, is intentionally and rhetorically emotional.
-
Takin' it to the streets
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let the battle royale begin! It is fair to criticize Obama's candidacy as a cult of personality that has no record of real progressive action. So far Obama IS all talk and no walk. Hillary, on the other hand, has the integrity of a bowl of water. Let the battle begin! I hope it toughens them both up a notch.