Letters to the Editor
David Schlaefer
Published Letters: 33 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Somewhat Hypocritical
[Read the article: "The Golden Compass"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's somewhat funny how so many reviews from the left are somehwat hypocritical about "Golden Compass" criticism. I don't know if Zacharek wrote a review when "Narnia" came out or not, but I distinctly recall many left-leaning and/or secularist types decrying the "blatant Christian symbolism" in the film, even though it was significantly toned down from the books. Now that many Christians are doing the same with the adaptation of Pullman's book, they're "shocked; shocked!"
Give me a break.
I presume the film is harmless, although it sounds rather sterile from this review. However, Zacharek and others just can't seem to resist getting in potshots at those hated religious bigots that want to keep kids from reading, stunt their intellectual growth, and defeat heresy.
If I'm not mistaken, Pullman has explicitly stated that "destroying Christianity," or something to that effect, is his fondest desire. Is it any surprise that religious parents might be a tad uneasy with a film based on his books? Does that make them the equivelant of Nazis burning books at a bonfire?
If Zacharek has kids, I doubt she'd be standing in line with them for tickets to the latest "Left Behind" film; not quite in line with your values, right?
Are you depriving your kids of a chance at growth? Stunting their intellect? Come on. You're simply teaching them what you believe to be right and wrong, and you don't want to confuse them by seeming to approve of (or be neutral about) something that conflicts with your most deeply held beliefs. When they're adults, they will make up their own minds, and maybe keep or maybe reject your views.
People that are leery about Pullman are just doing the same thing. It's not such a big deal and it shouldn't be so shocking. Reviews that excitedly bash the narrow-minded breeders in fear for their kids' souls are just railing at a strawman.
-
Blackpaw is Right
[Read the article: Judge: 10-year-old "probably agreed" to sex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This sad story has more to do with white guilt and multiculturalism than misogyny or chauvinism.
The main article asks the question whether the attackers of a white ten year old would get off so easily. Fair enough. But you should also ask whether nine white Australians would get off with a slap on the wrist after such an attack. The answer to both questions is no.
Sexual and domestic abuse of women and girls is rampant in Aboriginal society. It is a HUGE problem. Beacuse of white guilt over historic suppression of Aboriginal culture and Australia's strong pc movement (just as strong as that in the States), it is very difficult to even talk about the issue sometimes, let alone do something about it. White Australians are fearful of being labelled racist and ethnocentric in legal situations involving Aborigines-- to the point of being unable to apply normative western standards even in cases like this one. The dynamic is compounded by the tendancy to blame western culture for any and all problems with indigenous people. To suggest that historically patriachal and repressive (to women) Aboriginal culture is as much or more to blame for high rates of domestic abuse than alcoholism and ennui caused by white political and economic oppression is anethema.
This is an extreme example, but less extreme situations involving the same issues and feelings happen every day. Rather than punish offenders or unequivocally condemn such behaviors, a "teaching" attitude is adopted, and even that has to be parsed for appropriate cultural sensitivity.
-
Man, oh Man
[Read the article: Childhood's end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know the feeling. Completely. Jeez dude, you made me fuckin' cry....
-
Poll Conspiracy Theories
[Read the article: The comeback chick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At first glance, the reason the polls were so off on the Democratic side probably stems from problems not infrequently encountered in primary campaigns.
There was a significant early absentee vote, and this negates the Obama Iowa bump-- and, although you may find it hard to believe, many or most polltakers will not count these votes when collecting samples.
A related problem is the shifting definition of who is a "likely voter." That can change from race to race, and the big polling organizations have different calculations that come into play when deciding who's answer counts and who's doesn't.
There was a very heavy turnout of younger voters in Iowa (some, perhaps, actually from out of state), and that isn't normal. What I'm about to write is a little simplistic, but basically some polling organizations, believing Obama would attract similar numbers of young voters in NH, "recalibrate" their settings and include larger numbers of young responders as "likely voters."
In polls with sample sizes of 200 or 400, it doesn't take very much of this to skew the numbers if your initial assumptions are wrong.
So a young man or woman who registered at a college vote drive and has only voted once or not at all is called; in a knee-jerk reaction to all the press Obama has received says, "uh, yeah, I'm voting, I like Obama"; and then promptly tunes out and doesn't turn out, despite the momentary inspiratiuon to do so when speaking with the pollster.
If many such types are counted as "likely voters," you'll have problems.
It doesn't always have to do with young voters, of course-- but in NH, I strongly suspect that was the dynamic, and that if a more conservative definition of "likely voter" had been employed, the numbers would have showed a tighter race within the margin of error, and depending on last minute decisions of independents and turnout of registered Democrats.
It doesn't take conspiracy theories of the "Bradley Effect" to explain why pollsters sometimes get it wrong. If there is a political angle to it at all, it might be that polling and news organizations are just people after all. and they can get caught up in moments like the "Obama-mania" in Iowa like everyone else, and perhaps allow the crowd's excitement or their own hopes to factor too much into methodology.
It happens.