Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 608 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Democratic Mercy
[Read the article: Fall of the house of kitsch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is clever Sidney--applying the definition of kitsch to describe Bush, but I'll be honest with you--and far less abstract. Bush is of my own generation. I see him as the rich boy forever struggling to gain the respect and possibly surpass his father, but with a limited capacity.
Bush was the guy who spent most of his time at the frat house with his buddies trying to figure out how to get somebody else to do his work for him. He may have had the sense to recognize when somebody else had talent, and took advantage of those who latched on to him because of his family name.
To his credit, he learned to adapt, but he did so regardless of the cost. He relinquished any claim to a conscience of his own. He was ripe for plucking by a religious movement that told him what to believe. He is basically a person without any moral compass of his own. Hence, the "carnage" in Iraq, so distressing to "normal" Americans, is not something he relates too.
There is nobody at home, so to speak, inside of him who actually sees it or takes real responsibility for it. He is a guy doing the job that others basically informed him he must do in order to win. That's why he has to remind us he is the "decision" maker. That cocky additude is all over him--in his walk--in his smirk and implied protestation: "Hey, you guys just don't get it do you. If you just listened, and took ME seriously so I could have MY way, (Dad) everything would be okay."
This is basically the demeanor of a guy who never fully grew up. What is most troubling is that few actually see this, and if they do, don't say a thing. That it escapes the American public isn't a surprise either given that if nothing else Bush and company have learned how to play to their fears and moral insecurity like a modern day Nero watching Rome burn. It doesn't really matter how many die to a person who is basically a figurehead playing a part, rather than a person with a genuine feeling sense.
And now, he has reached his greatest challenge. He's going to have to stand alone, and he is going to have to face the music. I am sure the example of Clinton is very much on his mind.
If the Dems show him more mercy than the Republicans showed Clinton, it will probably be a good thing for the country, but I wonder how many will understand the higher values that are involved.
-
Evengelical Fear Mongers
[Read the article: Lost faith in the GOP]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Lauren failed to get under the surface in this interview. Because the prevailing attitude conceeds to the Evangelicals their position on same-sex marriage doesn't mean they shouldn't be questioned about the morality of it.
For instance, is Richard Cizik even aware the Evangelical perception that same sex marriage threatens hetersexual marriage is paranoid and unfounded? Why would anyone with a conscience back down from challenging this form of prejudice?
Especially when the opposite is true and threatens everybody, i.e. by not granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals they create a greater likelihood of "predation" rather than less because they are publically disenfranching and shaming the entire community, which studies have shown is roughly ten per cent of the population. Haven't they heard of "do unto others as they would do unto you?"
These "beliefs" in fact are no different than those of racists except the issue is sexual orientation. That there hasn't been a "sexual abolitionist" movement within Evangelicalism makes it a mockery and blasphemy of Christianity. That's the truth of the matter. Where are the true leaders within this so-called religious movement? That other denominations who know better don't disassociate themselves from this inquisition puts the entire tradition into disrepute.
If it isn't time to call them on it now--when will that time come? After they have passed these insane and regressive propositions all over the country--and actually think they have accomplished something with them? Why not give more coverage to those who are fighting this bigotry than these ignorant and misguided fear mongers? They are incapable of learning from their own hypocrasy.
Eventually, hopefully, more of these de-frocked clergy, or a new generation will step forward and fight the status quo. They will be the ones who go down in history as making the world a better place.
-
Is Anybody Home?
[Read the article: Do Democrats need the South?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's put it this way: aside from rascist sentiment and moral fear mongering, what does the Republican party have to offer moderate Southerners who've had enough of the "old boys?" Why not put the shoe on the other foot?
You aren't going to convince me everybody in the South is a reactionary cracker. Why waste time on them in the first place? Why couldn't the Dem victory be due to more enlightened Southerners realizing they could make a difference by not being co-dependent and striking out on their own by voting for Dems--regardless of the precedents and narrow minded perspectives.
They did it before they succumbed to the fundamentalist clergy and Rove tactics--they remember gramps going to the polls as proud Dems united with the labor movement of the North--why not give it another chance? In truth, they are not represented by a party that is run by big business and the oil industry. After you scrape off all the peanut butter, this is what you get: THE SOUTH IS WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE BETTER REPRESENTED BY DEMOCRATS AS LONG AS THEY FOCUS ON THE INTERESTS OF THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS.
And if the Dems want to maintain their gains and advance them that is what they should pay attention to between now and '08. Who carries the ball is not as important as having possession. Hello, hello, is anybody home?