Letters to the Editor
aeschylus
Published Letters: 219 Editor's Choice: 4
-
You give the game away...
[Read the article: The real lessons of 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]with this telling line: "What makes these wildly disparate entities so evil and so threatening that we're prepared to attack them without cause? Simply that they reject the *U.S.-Israeli writ* in the Middle East."
Uh, yeah. The modern state of Israel was created as a result ofby mandate of the UN in 1947. Remember the UN? That's the organization that we're supposed to *kowtow to* when their aims oppose those of Evil President Bush, who has devoted himself to grabbing power for its own sake. But the UN Partition Plan? Fuck *that*: that's just a "U.S.-Israel writ." And I *love* the antiseptic phrase "they reject." Let's see, there was the rejection in '48, the Six-Day Rejection and the Yom Kippur Rejection. Then there were the rejectionists at Munich in 1972, and the occasional person who would reject a given airline's choice of pilot and flightplan for one of its flights. Sometimes that person would reject the passenger list and pare it to his liking.
So America's response to 9/11 was *solely* "based on a distorted, ignorant and bigoted view of the Arab/Muslim world"? I'm not convinced that invading Iraq was the right play, but are you sure you want to paint with such a broad brush? Is it your contention that American bigotry against the Arab/Muslim world is an effect with no cause whatsoever? The first WTC bombing didn't happen? Nor the Cole? Nor the embassies in Africa? *None* of these events might conceivably put Arabs and/or Muslims in a bad light? After 9/11, is it so perplexing to you that the beheading of Daniel Pearl; the incident on the bridge in Fallujah; the murder of Theo Van Gogh; the violence that erupted after the erroneous "flushed Koran" story; and the protests over the Danish cartoons (complete with signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam") might inform what you dismiss as mindless bigotry? Let me see if I have this straight: on the one hand you decry the unfortune calls of Coulter, Savage, et al. to nuke the bastards. But on the other, when Iran's president raves about the 12th Imam and blusters about wiping Israel off the map, any uneasy feelings that American might have about this are baseless prejudice?
We love to caricature the nature of the Religious Right in this country (I'm an atheist, btw). Let me ask you this: how many abortion clinics have the theocratic fascists in this country bombed since 9/11? How many doctors who perform abortions have been tortured and murdered? How many died as a result of that "Piss Christ" photo years ago? And I'm sorry, but you can't dismiss this with "you just don't understand their culture!" When significant numbers of Muslims can be moved to violence by the slightest perceived offense against their prophet, maybe its the Muslims themselves who don't understand their culture.
And are you sure you want to single out the U.S. culture for its tilted gender roles? You think someone like Gloria Steinem would fit right in in Saudi Arabia, do you?
I close with the above question because it goes to the heart of the Left's hypocrisy regarding anti-Arab/Muslim bigotry. A few years ago I asked my students (yes, I'm a teacher) which bothered them more: the events at Abu Ghraib, or the events on that bridge in Fallujah. They overwhelmingly picked Abu Ghraib for the same unspoken, never admitted reason that you go after the U.S. for its actions but give the Arab/Muslim world a pass on theirs -- you *expect better* from the U.S.; and we only expect better from those whom we believe *are* better.
If we were going to go into Iraq at all, it probably should have been during the Gulf War. And this war has certainly mismanaged. But to suggest that the Iraq War is simply the product of a sick American culture inspired by no external factors whatsoever is, at best, naive.
-
In my experience...
[Read the article: We broke up after four years -- but he moved on so fast!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]it's hard to *stay* friends with an ex. Usually the "friendship" between exes (is that a word? It is now) needs to be put in storage for a while(particularly when one has "moved on" and the other hasn't). After a suitable period (from @2 months to never), the friendship can be resumed when both parties have enough distance.
-
Objecting to this incident is one thing...
[Read the article: Know your rights: The Kerry Taser incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but all this extrapolating about how America's a police state and somehow President Bush bears some of the blame for this is ludicrous. The kid got tased for Christ's sake. He's not Nelson Mandela.
-
Hey, Garry Owen...
[Read the article: Know your rights: The Kerry Taser incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd be interested to see the evidence of Prescott Bush's conviction for trading with Hitler. There's (some) merit to the charge, but I've yet to see a non-internet source of your conviction allegation.
-
What's with this honesty trend in parenting?
[Read the article: Should I tell my kids about all the drugs I used to do?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you tell your kids not to do drugs while at the same time telling them you did drugs, chances are better than 50/50 that they'll do drugs. Any smokers out there who tried and failed to keep their kids from smoking?
Treating your children as if they are fully formed adults when they are not is *not* good parenting. It's feel-good hippy nonsense. If your aim is to keep your kids off drugs (and that should be your aim), and if you think lying will help you achieve that aim, then LIE. Lying's not always a bad thing.
Think of Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth fairy.
If you tell your kids you did drugs but they should not, which half of the lesson do you imagine will stick?
-
Anybody who tries...
[Read the article: Taser nation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to assert any connection between this incident and President Bush is categorically insane. You want to go after the president on the war, have at it. But this is laughable. What's next? "Every time Bush breaks the law, a kitten dies."
Does Salon even have editors? Or is this like a Wikipedia deal?