Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 608 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Polemics and Analysis Are Not the Same
[Read the article: How the left caused 9/11, by Dinesh D'Souza]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. D'Souza is a perfect example of the polemics that are now being passed off as "analysis" at these so-called "think tanks."
From his answers in this interview, Mr. D'Souza's entire approach is no more than an attempt to argue for the "position" of what is now being passed off as "conservative." I see other letter writers hinting at that, but not getting down to it.
Saying, for instance, that "liberals" or the "left" caused 9/11 for reasons as obstruse as Carter breaking with the Shah is hard to consider as anything but baiting, and speaking to the confused, and already converted. The Shah was a ruthless dictator, a puppet of the oil industry, and who at that time had a crystal ball that could have predicted the result of his overthrow?
This is pure revisionist history for the purpose of some personal interpretation that has little to do with furthering the discussion, let alone getting at a truth that can then be shared by those not co-opted by the Neocon agenda.
That he would pull out the old chestnut about liberals not supporting "family values," as far as I am concerned eliminates him as someone who deserves to be taken seriously--yet apparently he has the nerve to present himself as an academic, and intellectual.
My bet is Mr. D'Souse is playing to the hands that feed him, and long ago decided to forgo any effort to engage in a genuine inquiry, if indeed he even knows what that is.
I can't take him seriously enough at this point to read his books. I suspect him of a fundmentalist bias working at a level that has never been examined, or at least he would do a better job concealing it.
This was once an "open" society. It was a place that recognized a need by the body politic, and the "culture," to have observers who were not coerced by so-called analytic institutions that supposedly kept the rest of the population informed of what was in our best interests.
Bush at present isn't even allowing our Iraqi allies sanctuary, which is an abomination of the values that created this nation--but given such a truncated, skewered perception, I don't see Mr. D'Souse as a person who even understands those values, let alone as someone willing to fight on behalf of them.
.
-
Timing and Pride
[Read the article: State of indifference]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a question of timing and pride.
The jig pretty much looks like it is up for Bush. It took long enough. It may not even require the hearings, investigations and whistle blowing, so that could explain the current stall after the Democrats fresh start.
Every preview I've seen of tonight's speech make it clear Bush will continue to be entirely irrelevant, and a "conscious majority" have started to see through the stilted rhetoric of a man who should never have been president in the first place. (election fraud or no election fraud)
In the unpredictable ebb and flow of national politics, especially given the exodus of co-opted Republicans in 08, it could be that Bush's ineptitude will provide the country with a transistion that is not simply puffery--just in time for the baby boomer's who will need a new domestic strategy in order to retire with dignity, and the millions who will benefit from health care reform, and a throttling of the control of the Neocon agenda, the oil industry, amoral corporations and the military archetype.
Aside from the agony of the thousands who have died, Americans and non-Americans, the millions who have been displaced, the unmitigated hate that has been engendered, and the future of the planet put into jeopardy--we may one day look back and be thankful that Bush II was president because he forced a re-aligned electorate to become aware of just how bad it can get when the intractable right is allowed to dominate the political process.
Enduring these next two years is going to be tough--no doubt--but every day now there are signs when it is over it will really be over--and those who participate in running these goons out of town can be proud.
-
Rhetoric and Greed
[Read the article: How to speak Republican]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In my father and grandfather's day, a guy like Frank Luntz was called a rhetorician. It is a tradition that goes back to the Greeks; a good education usually led to a class in it.
It doesn't matter what the position is, but "how" it is expressed.
The truth and "right" or "wrong" are not his responsibility. Clearly, Mr. Luntz has learned to capitalize on the need for this skill in a polarized and fragmented time--selling his services to whoever can pay his fee, I suspect.
Since the Republicans have ruled for so long, and often have more money--that could be all there is that explains his "conservatism." I think he is trying to make that point in this interview, possibly positioning himself for the changing winds in Washington.
Put another way, he is a literary mercenary--and one wonders, one day, when something will happen to him, or someone he cares about that will make him reconsider at least some of the issues he has washed his hands of--global warming, stem cell research, the individual right to choose to live or die--that would make him reconsider if there is a purpose to his life other than unadulterated greed.