Letters to the Editor
chimpygo
Published Letters: 199 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Obama and "Joe-six pack"
[Read the article: The "bitter" vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We are finally learning his true Feelings about 'Joe six pack Americans.'" —lylepink
The most important thing for working class Americans to know about Obama is that he's spent years of his life organizing in communities wrecked by factory closings—helping the unemployed find jobs.
Or that he thinks those who work hard for 40+ hrs a week shouldn't be living below the poverty line, or begging insurance companies for health care.
That it's ludicrous to ask U.S. taxpayers to subsidize the very companies that move their jobs overseas.
Obama may not have grown up in Erie, PA, but his vision of American society values all Americans, and he is committed to building alliances.
He may not compete in the PBA anytime soon, but his attitude and economic policies are incredibly friendly to blue collar Americans.
-
Bill Maher, John Mellencamp
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I saw one where Maher basically asked Mellencamp to explain/justify the trend of rural folk voting against their economic interests (often in the name of "values").
Mellencamp, A Dem, looked sad, said it's a shame
that basically good people are manipulated by the GOP to their own detriment.
Maher spoke pretty disparagingly about the ignorance and prejudices in these groups, saying well don't these people have themselves to blame?
Mellencamp, aware of the irony, wasn't ready to throw his people overboard.
Forgive my crude paraphrasing (and check it out yourself if you're curious http://youtube.com/watch?v=v4oln8TPwCc).
I can see why people might call Maher an "elitist." I also get awfully frustrated with good friends I have who toe the GOP line.
I come from a pretty rural, blue collar background and think a lot about this.
It's a difficult moment, the kind Cary Tennis might negotiate.
I think there are a lot of us who feel this way and have someting to contribute toward a meaningful discussion...
-
linchpins, canaries in coal mines
[Read the article: Let's dump "Earth Day"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The reason that many environmentalists fight to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the polar bears is not because they are sure that losing those things would cause the universe to become unhinged, but because they realize that humanity isn't smart enough to know which things are linchpins for the entire ecosystem and which are not."
Which is why general concern for the state of these interconnected systems isn't a bad idea per se.
Of course, the earth will be around for a longass time. We might not, though, so it's true that "save the earth" is hyperbolic and perhaps even cringe-inducing when we actually mean "preserve conditions suitable for human life."
And about these environmentalists: there are many caring people in the world with Disney-fied notions of nature who want to blot out suffering in the natural world in a way that just isn't feasible. Michael Crichton even has an essay on his site about environmentalism as religion, and I think he makes many good points.
But I think environmentalists get a bad rap (though some tend to have an ardor and idealism that don't make them relaxing to be around). I think the right wing has a lot to do with it: Limbaugh paints a good caricature.
I also think it's because they play the role of the nagging mother, and who wants that?
But what it we need to be nagged? I mean, a lot this stuff our culture does is absurd on its face and we know it, but we all collude to create this notion that it's fine—that there will never be any consequences for our actions, that the Enviros are just a bunch of loony alarmists—so we can go on not taking it too seriously.
Henry Miller wrote Enemy of the People, which is a good play about this phenomenon.
A great many enviromentalists are knowledgeable about science, too, and aren't trying to save the fictional Bambi.
They do tend to think differently, though. Studying the natural world and human body make clear that things being connected isn't just a feel-good metaphor but a practical reality. Holistic thinking, like preventing disease instead of treating symptoms, is based on both pragmatism and philosophy.
I am for feeling good, don't get me wrong. And, if looking at the world we come from and depend on for life happens to instill in you a sense wonder, awe, or connection, I'm all for that, too.
Scientific studies have shown that human animal is mentally healthier when it gets regular exposure to grass, trees, birds, etc.
Plenty of good spiritual/philosophical systems are rooted in knowledge of/reverence for the natural world. Lao Tzu reminding us that, over time, the soft water will overcome the hard shore and so on.
As this article ably makes clear, though, whether we share exactly overlapping motivations, there are a great many practical reasons to pay attention to "the environment":
1) environmental issues affecting human health have a disproportionate effect on the poor (dirty air and water can mean asthma, emphysema, birth defects, hormone problems, etc.) You think that lead paint on your baby's toy is bad, what sort of conditions do you imagine for the Chinese workers who made them?
2) we live in "the environment," and also drink the water and breathe the air and eat the food (pesticides, antibiotics, mercury, etc., etc.)
3) climate change could lead to global turmoil as droughts, fires, freak storms wipe out crops, as sea levels force shifts in boundaries, etc.
4) this is the exquisite corpse part ________________