Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Education is the Issue, But Bombs are the Priority
[Read the article: Out of the wilderness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The issue you are addressing Mr. Grieve is education. At least, to the extent public policy influences an electorate. Who has an such an interest in the "dumbing" of America that most news in the country is exactly what Rupert Murdock wants it to be?
Notice: education is hardly an issue in the Presidential. The last folks to at least seriously address it, if I'm not mistaken, was the Cllintons' years ago with "no child left behind," but now that has been pretty much de-bunked WITH NO ALTERNATIVE IN SIGHT.
How do you think the Rove coalition has been able to rule? Unless more folks such as yourself bring attention to the matter, even those few who do bother to stay informed won't make the connection--and the candidates won't have to either.
-
Rotten Cheese
[Read the article: Will Rudy Giuliani's marriage hurt his chances?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan: I think you're being led down a tunnel with rotten cheese at the end as a woman expected to be more interested in gossip about the candidates than the issues--and the sooner you get out of it the better. Doesn't it simply pigeonhole blogland in the average viewers eyes?
The same NYT Op-Ed page that sourced Greenwald's attack on O'Hanlon had an a-political piece by Nicholas Kristof on Bryan Caplan's book "The Myth of the Rational Voter, Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies." It's a reminder the issue of education has not yet come up in the election--aside for the rejection of "no child left behind." Isn't that more of an issue than whether Ms. Giuliani wants to be called Judi or Judith? Haven't we had enough of that low level crap?
Aren't you and Salon interested in enhancing the dialogue rather than reducing it to absurdity? I think Salon deserves the publicity but aren't their limits?
-
Impossible to Re-Construct
[Read the article: Remembering Bergman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is hard, impossible to re-construct is the feeling in those years when Bergman was producing steadily and a new movie by him came out. It was the time, for many, when god was dead--and yet--there he or she was, inextricably--enmeshed in the characters, plot and timeless images moving past the screen.
It was an old world, a dead insular world, a suffering world that was both fixed and evolving. There were those who "got" it, and the poor souls who didn't and never would. I can't quite remember another of the greats, (except perhaps Antonoini on occasion), who could haunt the morning after in a similar way--by refusing to pander to anyone's vision but his own. He was at the crossroads of literature and visual art, and I'm not sure "entertainment" was in his vocabulary.
I haven't gone back to see a Bergman film in a long time. He is so linked to the era that it's painful to realize it's past and will never come again. I'm sure with the time that has gone by, and the end of that era they won't be the same--but that is due to Bergman himself moving forward.
Goodbye Ingmar, I'm sure you were pain in the ass to know, and we got the best of you from your art. But we owe you for it, and so will the generations to come. "What you love well remains, the rest is dross."
-
Persecuting The Democratic Party
[Read the article: Stalking Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even among some of the smartest subscribers, picking up from Mr. Scherer's focus, the obsession is with the Republican perception, and the Republican "use" of the Clintons to arouse the Rove coalition.
It's not the place to look. Last seen, there were over 72 million registered Democrats to 49 million registered Republicans--the independants are another matter. These stats aren't that different than in '00 and '04. They don't make the "problem" in '08 anything the Republicans do or say the seminal issue at least on paper.
The real problem is more evident here in "liberal" blogland--in post after post persecuting the Democratic party in one way or another, and the refrain "she can't win, she can't win."
The unexamined assumption is when the time comes the Republicans will rally, and vote for their candidate and the Dems won't. That's the history for so long now that nobody bothers to challenge it--unless perhaps they are on somebody's payroll.
If you want to take issue with this assumption the place to do it isn't outside the party, at least for now, but inside it with the "liberal" cynics who refuse to comply with the democratic process as it exists--rather than their resentment based fantasies.
When more natural leaders, hopefully from the new generation, and perhaps those of the old guard who have matured, figure this out and make their stands known, it could make a difference--but who knows. Politics wasn't, isn't, and probably never will be rational in this democracy.
The Republicans in their way have proven they are superior. They win most major elections. It takes very little for faux "liberals" to turn tale and run.