Letters to the Editor
Sean SIberio
Published Letters: 155 Editor's Choice: 32
-
Dissecting the interview...
[Read the article: "We're all fascists now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Today we don't use the word "totalitarian," because the connotations have been so hardened in our minds. But we use these other words like "holistic" all the time.
The leap here, of course, is that the word holistic is the same as totalitarian. Nothing could be further from the truth, and Goldberg's analysis of Mussolini ignores the fact that when he spoke of a state that encompassed all, he also meant for only specific people, namely Italians (and specific kinds; Southern, or intermixed Italians, need not apply). Holistic may also imply the whole, and the connectedness of everything, but it does not dictate the terms of the membership.
One can think of it as the difference between evangelical groups and more open groups such as Unitarian Universalists. Both are, and can be, the pivotal juncture of one's social and religious life. But one requires you to believe in a fundamental creed of some sort, and the other doesn't care.
The Nazis were grotesque euthanizers.
And they also hated abortion, for people who they deemed SHOULD be breeding babies. Again, Goldberg's rhetoric is confused. After all, the previous paragraph he argues its "fascistic" to try and stop someone from harming himself, and then goes on to argue that euthanasia (something that can be done by someone anyways, regardless of the law, by simply putting a gun to one's head) is fascist.
"But I think the problem is you get into one of these sort of overly doctrinal, "let's go to the text" approaches where words get confused for things."
The essential bit there is "words get confused for things" ie: we actually might be having a substantial debate as opposed to making up definitions and running with it. And if we did look at peoples words, Goldberg's analysis of 68 would fall apart like the straw house in the three little pigs. The Situationist's repudiated Stalinists, as did many other far-left groups in Germany, as did most American groups (with the exception, of oddly enough, David Horowitz and his band of Stalinists in the magazine Ramparts). In fact, time and time again, it was old-line Stalinist unions that coerced and beat back the far-left elements into submission, especially in Italy.
From now on suggest that if want to invite people for interviews, we actually agree that words mean something, and that you just can't make stuff up fit your own agenda.
-
Being a Cuban American...
[Read the article: The coddled "terrorists" of South Florida]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Being a Cuban American, and growing up in the absurd machismo and bullshit nonsense that is our "community", I can safely say that these guys are tool sheds, and their tendrils of corruption and bullshit run deep. There is a reason why Miami's legal system, police force, and government are a kangaroo court and a farce of corruption and embezzlement. I'm no fan of Castro, but I'm not a fan of the corruption that these kind of half baked wanna be soldiers offer either.
-
If you thought...
[Read the article: Who owns the moon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you thought the gap between the rich and poor countries was bad, wait till someone discovers how to mine Helium-3. The simple reality is, treaty's such as the failed Moon treaty, are absolutely necessary to protect non-space faring countries from being gouged out of the future before they even have a chance. Even if the possibility is far off, and even if the technology is only in the planning stages now, a clear framework must be made that any and all resources be off limits, until such a time that a framework can be made that ALL nations, and their peoples, can benefit from.
-
This is why...
[Read the article: Paris goes big for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is exactly why unions should be apolitical in the sense of partisan or candidate approval. One of the biggest schisms in labor history (the expulsion of prominent CIO unions from the AFL-CIO) was founded on partisan lines (with the old guard promoting Democrats and the new radicals supporting Socialist or Communist parties). This is not to say they shouldn't have opinions or influence on legislation or policies, but I'm tired of these blank check supports for candidates who (like Bill Clinton) simply turn around and sell out said individuals when push comes to shove. It's been long overdue for unions to expect more from candidates than simply showing up, shaking hands, and saying a bunch of hoary labor platitudes.
-
Can we address the article?
[Read the article: Obama's historic run heads south]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love how every letters section of any Clinton/Obama article just merely picks up from where the last one did, irrelevant of whatever the actual article is talking about.
Addressing what the article is talking about, I disagree that the election of black (or female, or x whatever) candidate can be seen as a victory for the group in question. No place better demonstrates this than South Carolina itself, where most of its black legislators are impotent, due mostly to gerrymandering that guarantees them a safe seat, but a permanent minority in both Houses of the legislature. I'm not saying this is their fault (the lines, after all, are drawn by the party in power) but their almost rampant inability to either effectively use what power they have, and the fact that they will never face any serious challenger, renders their presence useless.
This gets into larger issues of what representation means, and dovetailing with the Clarence Thomas article, what ones group identity means. Is it (or was it) ever enough to be black/female/gay/Asian/etc? Is it better to vote in a conservative, Pro-life, family values woman or a pro-choice, feminist male? Is a white progressive better than a black conservative when it comes to advancing ones own identity group? I find many of the arguments preceding about Hillary's gender and Obama's race to be absurdly reductionist, and presuming (and almost rallying for), biologically determined factors being the driving force of identification, and not even something as coherent as ideology. Its gotten to almost absurd levels.