Letters to the Editor

• Wow, this is really a debate about identity, lifestyle

  [Read the article: E. O. Wilson gives soccer moms a bum rap]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  My initial reaction was anger that Wilson should be attacked for his “affront” to the poor, oppressed soccer moms—and dads—of America. (I’m a fan of Wilson, and appreciate his attempts to bridge the chasms that separate different disciplines. This seems much more newsworthy!)

  But then I thought about it. Even if you’re in a relatively affluent class, it can’t be fun to be constantly derided and painted as greedy and vapid. And look how easily the scorn came to my own lips.

  Obviously Wilson’s comment wasn’t very sensitive, but there’s clearly logic in it. Americans are incredibly ignorant about the natural world, and this is one huge reason we’re doing such horrible things to the environment, the one where we live. We tend to compartmentalize, thinking of “the environment” as an abstraction rather than the air we breathe or food we eat (pesticides, growth hormone, antibiotics, preservatives, chemical additives).

  And learning from experience and with joy rather than by rote is undeniably better.

  But it’s certainly not fair to lay all of this on the soccer folk, and I don’t find arboretums menacing or labels anti-educational; Wilson might just revise that statement if given the chance. Maybe he is old and grumpy.

  A commenteer (did I just coin that?) coming from another place, however, might have been curious to sort through some of these nuances, rather than assuming a defensive crouch and hurling invective in the general direction of Creationists (who do, indeed, work to inhibit truth and learning).

  Here’s the story: the soccer folk, especially the suburban soccer folk are part of huge and damaging trend. Suburbs mean big houses, lawn chemicals, lots of driving, lots of stuff. It’s a lifestyle built on affordable gas (or energy, we should say) and it drives our foreign policy. Do you buy into climate change yet?

  Maybe this uncomfortable complicity in a truly staggering problem makes some people defensive. It does me. Even though I try to live responsibly I’m certainly leaving behind an awfully big footprint and consuming vastly more resources than most people on the planet. And I don’t think it’s fair to blame this all on “yuppies.”

  We're obviously entering an age when convservation will be an important, "mainstream" issue. Who draws the line, and where? To what degree can/should moral judgement be passed?

  SUVs have a been a favorite target for years, and now it’s Al Gore’s big house. If we’re going to have a serious conversation about science and the world we live in, it is a good idea to stop calling names and honestly face the consequences of our lifestyle(s) (I bet the plastic in your keyboard is made out of petroleum). Though the view can be vastly different, we're ultimately in this together.

  p.s. But fer God’s sake, do you really have to lay into Wilson like this is the intelligentsia version of TMZ?

  http://www.tmz.com/

  p.p.s. If you’re curious about Wilson, check out this book, Consileience: The Unity of Knowledge:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience:_The_Unity_of_Knowledge

  or this interview:

  http://youtube.com/watch?v=StP4697Rtaw

  Permalink Wednesday, April 2, 2008 06:00 PM

• Maybe we should work backwards...

  [Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Start with the result that H.C. is elected, and then design the system to accomodate this desire?

  I mean, there's nothing wrong with evaluating the obviously imperfect process. And there are valid reasons for concern. But an "objective" critique of a system coupled with obvious support for a particular candidate smells fishy right off the bat.

  As an Obama supporter, I don't like at all the notion that so many primary voters had their votes stripped. That it likely (though it's hard to say, especially given Clinton's recent litany of "mis-statements") helps Obama does put the "people's candidate" in an odd position, no question.

  (It seems like there will never be a perfect solution which exactly balances proportionality with individual votes, but I'm all for improvement.)

  But Obama is just playing by the rules EVERYONE agreed to—in advance (which means BEFORE any of the actual voting started). He didn't set out to disenfranchise anyone. A journalist with a smidgen of integrity would find this--oh, I don't know, worth mentioning. I guess word limits are pretty tight in on-line publishing.

  Where was Hillary's concern for voting rights when the decision was made by the DNC? When she wanted (as so many others have pointed out) to count votes in a contest in which Obama WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT?

  Hillary, nicely wonkish we know, has a lot of positions and experience I admire (though voting for Iraq war and selling out national interests for GATT are not among them). She has, however, failed to articulate a vision of remaking America after this truly disastrous "presidency," and instead instead relies on ridiculous ploys and theatrics which help keep us divided and conquered.

  I don't support Hillary. Gee, does this mean I'm a sexist? How do you think Iraqi women and girls feel about her vote to cede Congress' consititional authority to declare war to Dubya?

  I've been drinking some Obama koolaid in the hopes that it would make me delusionally happy, that I would see him as infallible savior who leaves daisies growing in his footsteps. Sadly, it didn't happen. I merely see him as a mortal politician, but one who is head and shoulders above Clinton and McCain.

  p.s. the "war vote" will never be a dead horse so long as survivors of this tragedy (Americans, Iraqis, etc.) are living with the loss of loved ones, with crippling injuries, life-long psychological trauma, etc.

  It is certainly not a dead issue when 1) people are still dying in Iraq and 2) neo-cons are trying to drum up support for bombing Iran. For God's sake!

  p.p.s. what's wrong with our economy? Well, the Iraq war, borrowing money from China, GATT, and legalized corporate lawlessness don't seem to be helping us. Will H.C.?

  Permalink Monday, April 7, 2008 08:17 AM