Letters to the Editor
FreeProton
Published Letters: 238 Editor's Choice: 47
-
The worst part
[Read the article: The coverup worked]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Probably the most telling feature of this scandal is the comparison to Watergate. Perhaps everyone is right. The cover-up that is worse than the crime leads, in both cases, to much larger issues, among them the expose of an administration obsessed with only one thing: remaining in power. There is one parallel, however, that is the most worrisome: the aftermath. Watergate left the nation confused and divided, disenchanted with the office of the President that has gone too far. And though it may be argued that we were pretty well divided even before the Valerie Wilson issue broke, it's clear that the main aftermath of this scandal will also be confusion, division, disenchantment and dismay.
This is the first irrefutable proof of something that 50% of the nation suspected all along: that this administration played us for fools ever since the Towers fell. The phony "intelligence" that sold us on the Iraq war is just part of the brazen boo-politics used by our leaders to line their pockets and set up their cronies with cushy jobs in the government. It is one thing to suspect one's administration of fraud, it is a whole another thing to see proof of it.
For the people who voted against Bush in 2004, the Plame affair confirms their worst fears. For the people who voted for Bush in 2004, it is a nasty wake-up call. The President who rode to victory as the champion of "moral values" presides over a cabal of liars, cheats and thieves. The administration which was elected because people trusted them on national security spent innumerable man-hours dismantling our national security network. The people who are supposed to be competent at their job turned out to be nothing but a gaggle of petty criminals.
And that is probably the most damaging legacy of the Plame affair: our relization that for the last five years we've been ruled by a gang of thugs. It sucks to be us.
-
It's the environment, really
[Read the article: At home with David Brooks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It appears that the problem here is not as much the inherent badness of one worldview or another, but that the respective ideas are mismatched. For example: if one is to maintain that a woman does belong at home, then simultaneously one MUST require a man to be unable to divorce her. If a man is free to divorce his wife whenever he so pleases (or, to be fair, she is free to divorce him), then by all means, a woman should be (for her own safety) interested in getting a career that pays. This is logic, I'm aware that reality is much more complex, but after all, one of the reasons the patriarchy lingered so long is because, while women were restricted to the profession of a homemaker (or something that resembled it), the family was much harder to dissolve through divorce. Therein lies security, folks, and what people want most of all is security, isn't it?
The point of the article, as I see it, is that contrary to what Brooks says, it's far more dangerous for women, financially, to NOT have a career outside of the family, because it's so easy for them to be left high and dry when their husband tires of them. On the other hand, it's more dangerous for MEN to be married to a woman with a career, because... what if she tires of HIM? If she earns more than he does and leaves him, HE takes the financial hit. Columbo is full of stories where a hapless guy kills the wealthy woman he's courting or married to because somehow he's in financial trouble and she's not bailing him out anymore. THAT is why men are threatened by women who have better careers than them. It's not logical or anything to condone, it is what it is.
You know what, though? It would be SO much easier if nobody told anybody what they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. This world is far too complex for blanket statements.