Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Scapegoats and Champions
[Read the article: The feminist who made me blush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A thougthful review, but a little like wading into a sea of sharks despite having been present for the feminist "revolution" since the beginning.
Is it not inevitable that as the generation ages it would expose its "underbelly," and at least a few of the contenders would let it all hang out? Steinham did it, and even Friedan got a little personal toward the end. Doesn't telling the truth about oneself reveal a certain strength rather than weakness--life is short--why not push the envelope in any direction not already stuffed with paper?
It is appropriate now more than ever given the prospect that a woman is a viable candidate for the presidency. I've long thought the "revolution," was and is sadly lacking. The old school seems determined to play victim of something--morning blow jobs will do. But what won't do is the competition that has made Hillary a scapegoat among her own kind rather than the champion.
In my queries of these women they will not initially admit "standing by their man" when that man philanders is the reason they will have nothing to do with her, but I've found you can drag it out of them once you discover they have no genuine political issue. It is a sad commentary to those who watched the evolution of the movement, and were forced to change their way of life because of it. Why go to all the trouble when in the end they will abandon the effort at the precipice of one of their greatest victories? Are blow jobs really what it's all about?
I note the reviewer makes mention of none of this. "Women are getting harder, and men are getting softer," is the way Robert Bly puts it. And that more often than not leads to trouble. Grow up girls. We had to. Now it's your turn.
-
Ha Ha Oops Oops
[Read the article: What you missed while watching the new "Bionic Woman"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cute Michael, and a relief, but snakey. You know why as well as everyone else in the discussion she's "bionic." If I'm not mistaken you were in that business--you still call comedians "sir." If you're as smart as I suspect you will lay off having a public preference, and do the Joe Friday: "the facts, mam--nothing but the facts."
A pattern has definitely emerged. Obama's platitutes get him just so far, while Edward's skills as a trail lawyer make him a contender. He's also done a great job getting ahead on the issues, and with a wife like that running interference he has a shot for the long ball.
The problem now, as you well know, is that HC has successfully grabbed the middle--what there may be of it. Abhorrent as it sounds, they love knowing they're not retreating from anyone or anything. It could be that simple. It could also be right.
If anybody looks like they failed this debate--it's Russert. He's starting to look more like W.C. Fields every day--and sound more like he'd rather be in Philadelphia. How about: "Can the United States continue to champion Israel the way that we have in the past? This isn't a hypothetical question. I'd like you to access American policy in the Middle East." (I'm sure you'd like more about that.)
Or, "On his recent trip to the United States do you think the Iranian President was trying to bait this country into war?"
In other words--get them to say something--anything--at this point that broadens the real issues and takes advantage of the nominating process to actually inform the public instead of placate the factions. (Yeah, I'm a dreamer, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.)
If Hillary's ability to control the debate is what you mean by perpetuating the steriotype of her as "bionic" I get it. She's not taking many chances--and probably won't unless it's forced upon her. If it's another cheap shot that will become apparent when the mud starts to fly--that's another "matter." I think you should be more clear with yourself where you stand.
-
Making a Bigger Mess
[Read the article: The war president "at peace" with himself]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Piece after piece, like this one make the case that Bush pays no attention to anyone other than himself and his coterie of neo-cons. The question of "policy," and "diplomacy" mean nothing to him.
Yet, we still have articles like that of Steve Clemons here on Salon that conjure up all the reasons from a policy perspective that he won't invade Iran. It's "think-tank-ism," at its worst and even Joan Walsh seems to be buying it. (see her post for Sept. 27).
Let's get it straight. Bush doesn't give a rat's ass what the international community thinks. He hasn't got the incentive, intelligence or "patience" as this article shows. If the Republicans really appear to be losing the race for the White House that will be his motivation to invade Iran. Party loyalty is his forte. A Democratic administration confronted by an even greater mess is all the reason he needs. I'm sure he'll sleep peacefully that night too. His problem is that he never wakes up.
I can't figure out why this isn't being more broadly discussed, but if anywhere blogland is the place. The candidates have seen through its limitations, but writers and bloggers have a freedom they don't have.