Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
It Doesn't Have to Take a Harvard Degree, Does It?
[Read the article: Obama goes for the capillaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the old days when they reported on an event like this the journalist was responsible for re-creating the arguments of the candidates so the readers could decide what to make of them, and their opinions.
Today (no specific offence to Walter because everyone does it in almost every media I know) everything is set against the background of cynicism and polarity that has become the fashion in describing the "performance" of the candidates--and how they "tailor" themselves to the locals.
I've gotten tired of it. The more this election goes on, and the more time there is to reflect, the more I see the problem is that politics has a bad name for itself for a reason, and it's become so common it is considered naive to take umbrage with it.
I don't know anybody any longer, for interest, with a fine family and real values--not regressive fundie values--to even remotely consider having a child go into politics. No more: "my son or daughter wants to help lead the country some day." It is a profession consequently that no longer attracts the best, but the worst--and the country gets the leaders it deserves.
It's like throwing a rock in the sea, but it has to be said. I am so tired of the goons, used care salesmen and son's of the ruling class constantly taking control. No, it's not true across the board, but certainly it is with the incumbent, and it doesn't take a Harvard degree to at least see it. At least, the Dems share modest backgrounds so they are less likely to be corporate shills like Bush and Cheney. (I am aware Obama has a Harvard degree, but that isn't the point.)
If they didn't make a "populist" appeal they wouldn't get elected. The question is who is stretching the most based on their "positions" and history--if they have much of a history. After Bush, the only gap that really matters is between the Dems and the Republicans. That is what has to be sorted out. The rest is rhetoric.
-
Who Is the Victim Now?
[Read the article: America's next top spouse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to commend the discipline shown in this piece. In an age when American women are getting tougher and tougher and political wives still have to pretend otherwise or be labeled kooks--for the most part--Ms. Traister steers right through the labyrinth laughing most of the way.
I actually wonder what would happen if they had a male writer take a crack at the assignment given they either remain cretans--or softies who dare not tread in the realm of the feminine. (I know I don't like too. It's a no win--with one exception and it has to be said.)
If actions matter, HRC is NOT in the same league as the other first wives and everybody knows it. One must continue to wonder why she is so despised at least before the election is over, the Dems lose again, and nobody really knows the reason. The Clintons' after all, have given America a look at itself that it would like to hide.
Take a look at C. Paglia on HRC, or M. Dowd at the NYTIMES who is leading the charge (no surprise there) or Ruth Marcus at the POST. I quote: "If Hillary becomes Senator after playing the victim after Monica, surely she can become president after playing victim now." Competitive? Naw. It's just the facts, sir, nothing but the facts.
And now that the game is being played: a woman of the 60's generation, who invented it, is at the plate. Her own kind are throwing more spit than balls. The fans in the bleachers are holding their breath. The umps are looking the other way for fear they will be kicked out of the game themselves. The sportcasters are playing dumb and it is later in the game than anyone wants to admit.
Is there hope for American womenhood to embrace one of their own when she reaches further than any other? What are they going to do once the curtain in the voting booth is drawn? Will it benefit the nation or how about the children of the nation? (All those girls who do so well at school.) Or will it be the end of cookies at Christmas and cigarettes after sex?
Will the prudes in the end be victorious? That's what I want to know. Will the inconsolable in the war between the sexes claim a new scapegoat? The referendum isn't far off...