Letters to the Editor
cheetah
Published Letters: 6 Editor's Choice: 1
-
The Dick and Larry show
[Read the article: The Dick and Larry Show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most interesting to me in this interview is that it appears to be part of a standard circular media spin tactic which has been so effective for this gang in the past. Here is how it seems to go. Some shills like O'Hanlon and Pollack write an op-ed in the obliging NYT, express what must seem like a delusionally rosy assessment of current policies in Iraq, but protest, untruthfully, that they have been hard-headed opponents of the war and Cheney's policies. This OPINION is cited by the vice-president (in an exquisitely-timed public broadcast) as PROOF of the success of his policies simply because an erstwhile "opponent" is expressing it. By inference we are invited to conclude that the opinion must have been swayed by irresistable facts rather than political prejudice. To prop it up: public background statements such as by Secretary Gates that "opinion is changing". A similar tactic was used (again with the NYT set up as a straw opponent) in the runup to the war. All very effective because of this critical overarching environment: the climate of public ignorance and mistrust engendered by the comprehensive policy of war zone censorship and propaganda.
-
No Nazi?
[Read the article: The poisonous rhetorical legacy of Karl Rove]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do you write "Rove is, of course, no Nazi"? At what point do we citizens decide that all the policies argued for, enacted, executed and defended against objection by this man really do define WHO HE IS?
The list of such policies is long and well known: the invasion of other coutries without just cause,the torture and denial of human rights to enemies, the consolidation of world power and maintenance of supremacy as a manifest right, the destruction of domestic political opposition as a goal beyond victory, the manipulation of faith in God and country to mobilize hatred and aggression, the justification of any means by the ends of political success, the pillage of a government and treasury under the fog of manufactured emergencies. We have seen all of this before and we knew then what to call it: fascism. It's time to reintroduce the "F" word in a truthful discussion of this administration and brace ourselves for the type of brownshirt blowback that is the Rovian hallmark.
-
Thanks for your patriotism
[Read the article: The latest revelations of lawbreaking, torture and extremism ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glen,
Thank you so much for speaking out against the steady, breathtaking evisceration of our civil liberties and democratic institutions by "the current power elite" in Washington. As many of us are belatedly realizing after these long years into our national nightmare, "current administration" no longer suffices to describe the breadth of corruption that threatens our republic. We common citizens have been bewildered by the audacity of the attack and the impunity with which it is being carried out. It can mean only one thing: "we are all in on it" Your summary of our condition is a much needed reminder to me of what a dangerous time this is.
-
Lunch with Charles Schultz
[Read the article: "I only dread one day at a time!"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many years ago I was a hopeful but unpublished young cartoonist and my friend Nancy wrangled me an interview with Charles Schultz. She had the nerve to ask and Mr. Schultz had the grace and generosity to invite us to lunch.
Lunch was at his reserved table at his cafe inside his ice arena across the street from his studio in what was, for many years, his town, Santa Rosa, California. Apparently, he ate there almost every day after putting the final touches on his daily strip.
Before the lunch I knew nothing of Charles Schultz the man and had made some naive assumptions about his personality from his work. I,too, had grown up with his newspaper characters and pored over the pulp compendiums at friend's houses because "comic books" were not allowed in my librarian mother's house. I thought I would be regaled by a merry saint full of some sort of homespun, transcendental wisdom about the human condition. I would be very suprised.
Lunch started well. I found no common enthuiasm from him for drawing (anything but his strip) or the arts, but did get a sense of his basic goodness: hard work and kindness toward others. Mr. Schultz's great kindness toward me, I quickly found, however, did not extend to the work that I had brought for his review. His face clouded markedly when he saw it and its message of sarcasm and satire, and he made no bones about his opinion of it. It was not uplifting and was completely negative. Yes, it was drawn well, but it did not make him feel good. He suggested I study a syndicated cartoonist whom I had considered vapid and saccharine. I was completely deflated.
In this condition I endured the full blossoming of his wrath against the current popularity of a rival cartoonist whose style I imagine he thought I was imitating. Mr. Schultz was outraged that this rival did not draw much of his strip himself, but had others do it for him. He thoroughly condemned the world view of the man and almost seemed to think that it was dangerous. I felt that I was hearing the harsh judgement of a proud and disciplined man and that it revealed a dark and suprising vulnerability.
Mr. Schultz returned to his encouragement of my talents and he hoped that I would seek a more uplifting subject for my work before biddng me goodbye. Throughout the lunch he had remained a gentleman in his views and manner and I continue to have great respect for him, despite the many demons that I'm sure this new biography reveals. My particular insight from the lunch was that a complex tension sometimes exists under the surface of a seemingly simple persona. I am still not sure if this tension was in any way artistic or not.