Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 539 Editor's Choice: 97
-
Taking Issue
[Read the article: Presidential candidates and "substance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe what Glenn wants is a politician who has lots and lots of experience, who can show they will not be turned to toast in Washington, and speaks in sweet platitudes of guileless orators who appeal to the sensitive and the youthful among us, regardless of their age.
Yes, that would be a nice combo--but alas--the era when that was possible, say during the time of Dwight Eisenhower, is long since past.
Yes, Hillary and the "Clintonistas" are political animals--what does he expect them to be?
Could it be because she is a woman--and there is an unconscious prejudice that women are supposed to be "nice" and above the strategy that goes with presidential politics? Perhaps, it is a wild attempt to keep the bragosphere pure and objective until it is absolutely necessary to commit--after it's too late and the barbarians are back banging on the gate?
I didn't plan to be a Hillary fan, I really didn't, but the anti-bandwagon is already rolling, even if it has lost it's rearview mirror. Why are we even talking about health care now? Why do we have any insight into the battle?
Who deserves that credit? Is there something, perhaps, unsophisticated, and sentimental about giving credit to a politician these days--(especially if they are the front runner) or do we simply prefer "leadership by default" to a bunch of corporate con-men, bigots, and the unconscious traditionalists?
I don't think it pays to be so "above the fray" (like in '00 and '04) so the right gets to rule for another four years. I've enjoyed Greenwald up until now--but if he is going to join the feeding frenzy that leads to another Democratic defeat, I will take issue.
-
RE: ARMAGENOUTAHERE
[Read the article: Presidential candidates and "substance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn: If the Clinton's are "wallowing in the fruits," of their positions, I wonder what you think of the oil barons and their booty--and if you will attribute that to the Clinton's' somehow as well?
You got any leads on their "cynical beltway transactions?" I thought they got run over the coals well enough before, but maybe you can do a better job.
Have you forgotten the difference between Clinton's "war," and the current debacle? One stopped genocide, the other has caused it.
Finally, Glenn, I enjoy your work, but what kind of mumbo-jumbo is the election of Hillary would "re-impose...aristocratic rule?"
Perhaps, you are the new Svengali and looked into your crystal ball?
-
Without Prompting
[Read the article: Gospel according to Judas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like how Elaine Pagels avoids the word "symbol," and sticks with the more literal term: "metaphor." It keeps scriptural studies closer to literary studies--and keeps the work of people like Campbell and the psychoanalysts out of the discussion.
It's a sort of peace offering without being seen as such. But it also doesn't change the fact that as more research is done into the history of christianity and religion in general it becomes apparent how the needs and understanding of the collective at any one time in history is what determines the "story" that evolves.
How biblical literalism itself continues to thrive is a testament to the power of religion, given that it is so easily repudiated. And yet, it is to the credit of scholars such as Ms. Pagels that they do not debunk it--and make enemies where none are needed. The expanding consciouness of man, (not unlike the universe itself as we now understand it) seems to do that naturally, (if awkwardly) without prompting.
The literalists of the current generation don't agree, but give their better educated and more individuated children time. It is a slow process, but inexorable. In the end, as more see the threat literalism poses, it is the source of hope for the future.
-
An Attitude Problem
[Read the article: Last chance for Mideast peace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think an accord is not going to happen for simple reasons. Bush is not a peacemaker. That's the nice way to say it. That he is inept and incapable is another--and if we haven't learned yet that strong, resolute and "smart" leadership is what is called for in the Middle East, nothing has been learned in the fifty years.
He sees nothing basically at stake for himself, the US, or to represent any higher moral imperative. Even if the neocons are mostly gone at this point it doesn't matter. If you were any of these other leaders would you respect him enough to take a chance on peace? A US president without a conscience is a problem for the world--and that is what we have been witness to for over six years.
The "best" he can do is give Fatah a new army and increase the violence between Palestinians. Rice has basically become a pathetic figure since she has the clout of a mouse and everybody knows it.
I wouldn't say, however, that the opportunty for peace is slipping away forever. That's the usual catastophic projection. New leadership for the US and Israel is what is called for. As Soros said recently, recognition of Israel should come as part of an accord, not as a stipulation prior to negotiations. That will take an American leader without an attitude problem, and an Israeli leader who can think for themselves.
Personally, I don't think that person can come from the party that brought the country Bush, and if one takes the problem in the Middle East seriously, that is a focus--and so is not eviscerating the Dems the way it happened in '00 and '04.