Letters to the Editor
hontonoshijin
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 14
-
Clinton
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Mrs. Traister--
Was not going to comment because I feel that civil comment is practically useless in a wildnerness of vituperation, but feel I must, since there are so many letters in response to your column which only bear out its general thesis.
Do not feel, however, that the entire hysterical reaction against Clinton is based on feminism. I lived in Arkansas for many years, including all the years Clinton was governor, and have observed both Clintons closely for a long time, and have spent a few hours in their company. Hillary Clinton is tough and perhaps a bit inclined to bossiness, but she is, on the other hand, a genuine woman who honestly cares about the people she represents.
The anti-Clinton hysteria predates this campaign. The virulence which Mrs. Clinton now endures has its roots in the Clinton hatred of his Mr. Clinton's terms as president. Clinton frightened the rightwingers badly, and they reacted with every bit of name-calling, accusation, and hatred they could muster. It is true that Mrs. Clinton suffers from disguised sexism, but I feel that is because the pathways of hatred have already been created and treated as acceptable. When one virus attacks, another is more likely to find opportunity in the weakened immune system.
I'm sure that many Obama supporters honestly feel he is the best candidate. If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him. Nevertheless, there is a tone of violence and hatred in many of the letters against Clinton which I find unforgivable and certainly unacceptable in civilized discourse. I have commented on this before in Salon's letter columns, suggesting that all ad hominem attacks on anyone be banned. Why would this be so hard to do? Do we have an obligation to listen to this sort of nastiness? I don't think so. It is the reason I quit reading the Huffington Post.
What I don't understand is those who cannot see that the enemy is hatred, dishonesty, and lies, and that to engage in any of these for any reason whatsoever, no matter how good you imagine your excuse to be, is only to support a disastrous outcome.
Anger and hatred are very convincing if one allows them to dominate one's thought processes--precisely because they exclude any evidence to the contrary. This is the behavior of any pathology. It converts all surrounding material to its own likeness, but destroys the host. I would urge we follow the recommendation of the wise in all ages, and simply refuse to entertain these emotions in the first place.
I am a white male, by the way, albeit not a privileged one.
-
republican tactics
[Read the article: Media hypocrites love personality politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many posters on this thread have bemoaned the "inevitable" loss that the Democrats will incur in November.
That's just one more Republican fiction. The Democrats, no matter who is nominated, are going to wipe the floor with the Republicans. So we fuss and squabble and disagree. So? That's the nature of intelligence. Only the simple-minded can stick to simplistic notions.
The fact is, our citizens have been cheated and lied to for a long time, and they know it, and they know who has done it. The so-called "average citizens" suspect all politicians, and rightly so. They know Democrats are people, and are on the whole no more honest than any other group of people, but they also know right now Democrats are the best option we have.
Those polls purporting to show McCain winning? Oh yeah? You actually still believe polls?
Let the Republicans keep on lying. They're digging their own graves. Throw the rascals out? It's gonna happen.
-
For PaulBC, re bumper stickers
[Read the article: Media hypocrites love personality politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are of course familiar with that bumper sticker that reads WWJD, meaning "What would Jesus Do?"
I have proposed two alternate bumper stickers: One reads, "If you aren't Jesus, shut up." The other is JWDW: "Jesus would do WHAT?"
-
earth day
[Read the article: Let's dump "Earth Day"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, I am one of those who is invigorated by wilderness. It matters to me fundamentally.
Nevertheless, if the point is how to convince others, I agree that the self-interest argument is strong. I recommend Richard Wilbur's splendid poem on this subject, "Advice to a Prophet," written over thirty years ago.
-
sierra spring
[Read the article: Life, death and spring]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are fortunate to have such a place to go to. Good writing.
I was once alone with a bear as you were with the mountain lion. Salutary.
One minor quibble: The fact that jaws snap shut under it does not mean that beauty is "just" a surface phenomenon, not to me. It does mean that beauty is sterner than we, in our Disneyfied apperception, usually think.
-
caring
[Read the article: The Gilded Age, past and present]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, Fraser's article does not say that no one cares. That's merely the tagline, probably written by someone else.
And plenty of people do care. It is a mistake to assume that lack of power and lack of caring are the same. It is also a mistake, as the article points out, to assume that the resistance will come in the same form as it did last time.
The greedy and dishonest will always, like mutating disease organisms, seek new pathways to exert their destructive dominance. It will always require new strategies to defeat them.