Letters to the Editor
maureenodonnell
Published Letters: 492 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Kahawa, it's only now that I've seen your post and I'll try to explain.
[Read the article: Obama should be proud to be named Hussein]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, I do not think that Barack Obama should be ashamed of his middle name as he did not choose any of his names. There are many embarrassing middle names and the only reason it might be embarrassing to Obama is in the current political context. I know a man in his sixties who once told me that his second name is Mary and that it was on his birth certificate which annoyed him considerably. The reason for this second name was that his mother was a devout Catholic and, apparently, this was in thanksgiving to Holy Mary for the safe delivery of the baby and his mother's continued good health. To make matters worse for him in adulthood, he is not religious. We have to forgive our parents for a lot but we should also remember that childbirth could, in the past, be more perilous than it has been in the last 50 years, because of medical advances. Obama should have confronted the matter of his middle name long before now. My own middle name is quite OK but my brother's is one he hates and it's a family secret.
Juan Cole is absolutely wrong in stating that the British royal family is "forthright" about tracing its origins back to Andalusia. In the first place, I don't believe it because the current (note:current) royal family is Hanoverian with no Plantaganet, Tudor or Stuart blood and the British royal family ruled the whole of my country until l922 (Northern Ireland is still under the British Crown). We do know quite a lot about the British monarchy. Well, if Juan Cole flies a kite like this, which can easily be pulled down to earth, why should I believe anything else he's written in his article? I know nothing about Jewish and Arab names, except that Omar Sharif was an actor, was born in Egypt and was an excellent player of bridge (the card-game). I have some idea of the Rubyiat of Omar Khayam (translated by Edward Fitzgerald, I think. Look, I write off the top of my head, although I had to check on Edward 1V when Juan Cole responded but a writer in Salon (such as Mr. Cole) is presumed to have done his research. Others, with a knowlege of Muslim and Jewish names, have also responded to him and claimed that his statements were incorrect. The point I was making, Kahawa, is that if I come across a glaring error of fact (not opinion) in anything I read, I tend to dismiss the author's other conclusions as an example of lazy journalism or an attempt to make "a silk purse out of a sow's ear" as too many journalists do when they present faction/fiction as fact. If you are an American you will understand that King George 111 had a huge impact on what became the United States of America and any Irish person interested in history knows about the fractious relationship between our islands. In general, I like the English a lot, particularly their wry sense of humour and their language/literature. I'm Irish, I'm sure of my identity, and hating others for battles long ago (the Battle of the Boyne, particularly) has no attraction for me.
-
When the Russian emperor, Peter the Great, had the city of St. Petersburg built, he is said to have described it as "a window on the world"
[Read the article: Obama hits back at Clinton ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]His idea of "the world" was the Scandinavian countries, Holland, England and particulary the Germanic States which were technically advanced by the standards of that time. The Internet now provides anyone with a computer, literacy in one of the major languages, and an interest in world affairs, with a much better and clearer "window on the world". The Russian presidential election is beginning tomorrow and I'd really like to know more about it, rather than depending solely on Western media outlets, but, unfortunately, I don't know any Russian apart from words like "babushka", "glasnost", "perestroika", well-known words like that. However, the Internet has given me a tiny window into the American election, for the first time in my life, and I've read lots of posts when I have time to do so. Your presidential election process is exceptionally long and doesn't excite real interest outside America until later in the year. It's easy enough to understand the most salient points. Many people on this site state that Hillary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq (an invasion I deplore now that I know Iraq posed no threat to America) and Barack Obama voted against the invasion, and that is one of the reasons why people support him instead of Clinton. There are three maxims that used to be drilled into serious journalists once upon a time: where, when and how. With all the to-ing and fro-ing on this site (I recoiled from the Huffpo one for reasons I'd prefer not to state) I still don't know (a) where Senator Obama expressed his opposition to the war in Iraq, (b) when he voiced his opposition and (c) what he did, in practical terms or any other meaningful way, to let the public know his position of the invasion of March 2003. Someone posted here today that Old Europe did not have the so-called intelligence reports which seemed to justify Iraq's menace. Yes, there were huge demonstrations against the war in Europe's capitals but there were also many people unable or unwilling to believe that an American administraton could lie on such a massive scale and they did not join the protests. There is no doubt that the "war" which began just about five years ago has damaged America's reputation to an unprecedented extent but, prior to that, there have been many who have doubted the message of "democracy" that US foreign policy uses far too often as a flag of convenience. Even the Korean War was basicly about competing ideologies and economic systems. Russia is resurgent now and if Medvedev wins, as is anticipated, a new American President will have to try to live in harmony with Dmitry Medvedev on the planet we all share.