Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Krugman and the Smart Rats
[Read the article: Good times for liberals]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "interesting" part is that it doesn't take a Krugman to reach the same conclusions. It's everywhere in the culture.
Who are the Republicans today? Do you know any of them? I have three in my extended family. They are all racists. They try to hide, and we don't talk about it--but the wrong words pop out of their mouth at the wrong time. They're full of anger or guilt.
They aren't wealthy, but they are white. Healthcare is an issue for them and their children and grandchildren, but it isn't what makes them vote. They'd rather die than not have a gun next to their bed--just in case--one of them said: "they try to come over the hill."
I don't agree that it's just the civil rights movement, however, that marked the beginning of the great cultural divide that created the current polarity. It was the 60's as a "gestalt"--a new way to look at America across the board. So far, the winds of reaction have won, but how long they can do so in the face of reason, tolerance, and mutual survival is another matter.
That Krugman, for instance, writes for the NYTIMES dispells at least partly the myth that the MSM is completely co-opted by the corporations. Yet he generally fails to point out that the enemy is just as much the cynical liberals and "smart rats" who don't participate as it is those systemically committed to an earlier version of America that no longer works.
I hope he's right--that a liberal era is about to being again, but I'm not so convinced. The smart rats still think it's somebody elses responsibility to "fix" the system and make the compromises they refuse to make.
-
Exporting Taffy
[Read the article: Genocide: An inconvenient truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Morally, there is an unavoidable question: if the international community, and for those who honestly consider the United States a part of that community, does not speak against genocide what function is it serving?
That the silence has continued in this country for so long is another example of the control of the military, and the militarists. I looked at one of their blogs yesterday. An article questioned the veracity of the cold war, as if the US didn't do enough in those years, and sure enough, there were the usual "bomb 'em" replies with the suggestion that the US could have "liberated" the USSR had we done so. This is a clear indicator the US has entered an Imperial Neo-Colonial age for which there is little to no recognition.
They have basically had near total control over the US since World War II. They have used the balk of our wealth to maintain a military economy. They have at least one political party in their pocket, and the other just barely able to stay out of their reach if a strong leader is elected.
If the Turks want to join the twenty-first century, this is their biggest opportunity. Will it be their excuse to invade the Kurds, and break their military alliance with the US--or will some diplomacy come into play? Will a heretofore silent dissent in Turkey come forward--and will Turkey's true colors be seen in a ruthless supression of human rights? Will the US find itself on the same side of a table with the EU once again?
Is Turkey a country that has really made up it's mind it wants to be secular and just--or has it all been a charade to import more oil and export more taffy? For once, the Dems have taken an initiative--and now we will see who gets it.
-
Iran Brings Out the Fringe
[Read the article: The Iran hawks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More interesting than the article is the responses in this case. Iran brings out the fringe better than any other issue right now.
They are starting to "make up their mind." It's in about every third post. Hillary is the chief object of their derision. Any move she makes that doesn't respond to their ideology of "no war," as vaguely as they define it drives them immediately into the hands of another candidate.
Right now, Ron Paul is their golden boy, but give him a chance--eventually he's going to have to say something other than "follow the constitution," and he'll be on their shit list too.
In the material printed up about Doris Lessing following her Nobel, she spoke about the "fringe." They're the hotheads who can be very dangerous at certain times. Their hang-out at present is in the Blogs--right and left. They have some "idea" about how it's all supposed to be--and will explain it to you in great detail, but don't ask them to participate in a way that might make a difference--not in the end--not when the chips are down--and they get to grandstand.
Hillary's vote to put Iran on the terrorist list does not make her a "bomb Iran" advocate. It does, however, send out a message that she's not a fool and won't be suckered by the provocations of Ahmadinejad. That does and should win votes from moderates, not the fringe who turn every action into another reason to withhold themselves.
In a standoff, looking eye to eye, between Hillary and Ahmadinejad, I think I know who'd blink first--don't you? When you're dealing with a madman that's a good thing, and centrists are likely to agree.