Letters to the Editor
emelbe
Published Letters: 5 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Not so long ago
[Read the article: Edwards' insensitive move]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]it seemed that public figures — politicians in particular — were concerned with being politically correct, that is, displaying deference to the ideals of fairness and plurality. As this article seems to imply and as the most recent Republican presidential debate so clearly illustrated, in the American public sphere political correctness has given way to martial correctness and its requisite deference to militarism.
-
I’m somewhat astounded by this is a rather fawning review
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "The Shield"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]of a cop show whose plot lines consistently glorify extra-judicial violence, meted out with hackneyed and predictable “thin blue line” rationalizations, and offered up with all of the emotional intelligence of either, a. a badly scripted soap opera or, b. the Bush administration. I would suggest that anyone inclined to publicly laud this cop porn might consider reading Bob Herbert’s recent NYT columns about the spate of NYPD assaults on students (and teachers) in that city’s public schools. The only discernable message of The Shield’s infantile morality play would seem to be that the ends always justify the means, and if yee-haw police brutality happens to predominate in the process, so be it. Just so long as loyalty prevails.
I’ll confess that I’ve watched the Shield. But then again, I’ve also eaten at McDonald’s, and I’m none the better for it.
-
Here’s a thought experiment even a 10 year old can do.
[Read the article: What "truly motivates" George W. Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](Or, in my case, an unoriginal middle-aged slacker.)
Imagine you’re [insert name of evil dictator here] going about your morning routine, getting ready to start your day. Let’s assume that you’ve finished grooming and getting dressed, and are taking a last glance at yourself in the mirror before heading out into the world. Upon seeing your reflection do you cartoonishly sneer, hunch your shoulders and diabolically rub your hands together while wondering aloud, “What evil deeds shall I perform today?”
No, of course not.
This simple experiment led me to surmise that any politically motivated violent atrocity can and invariably will be rationalized in terms of national interest and/or political transformation. Furthermore, when one stops to consider that even the most murderous political villains had their virtues – Hitler was said to be personable and charming; Stalin reportedly displayed an early talent for poetry – one perhaps comes to a useful realization regarding evil itself.
I would suggest that evil, as it exists in the human condition, is never characterized by the absence of virtue. Rather, it is the absence of self-recognition. And while I’m not religious, it seems to me that if one extrapolates this out one might conclude that any satanic malevolence – if there were such a thing – would by definition be unaware of its own existence.
Clearly, Bush and Cheney are not motivated by evil per se. No one ever is, not even the “terrorists.” However, I’d assert that their war making deeds are rendered evil by their own lack of self-examination. And this, in my opinion, is where Bush’s religiosity factors in precisely because he, like so many others on the religious right, does not appear to approach religion as a means of self-awareness. Instead, he appears to have used religion as a work-around, because any meaningful self-assessment requires time, energy and the willingness to endure the emotional discomfort and uncertainty that comes with critically examining one’s own assumptions.
All of which is not to suggest that in the case of Bush and Cheney there aren’t other variables to be factored in when contemplating their motivations. In Cheney’s case, there would appear to be a combination of greed and decades old domestic political agendas while Bush, it seems to me, is beset by Oedipal conflict along with a host of intellectual and emotional insecurities. But even in light of all of the complexities and confounding variables, it doesn’t seem to me to be too far fetched to assume the existence of some fairy simple, basic underlying moral definitions, regardless of whether we’re talking about “us” or “them.”
Call me hubristic.
-
It seems to me that stall tactics
[Read the article: Larry Craig's comeback?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]are what got him into this mess in the first place.
Just sayin'.
-
My inner five year old weighs in
[Read the article: The bowel movement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, it’s helpful to know that bowl water “entry points” factor into determining lower digestive tract health. Guess I’ll try visualizing Greg Louganis during my next elimination and see if that helps. Except for that time at the ’88 Seoul Summer Olympics when he hit his head on the 3-meter board – wouldn’t want that mess.
Reading this, I was reminded of a scene in The Madness of King George in which the royal physician was finally reprimanded for his scatological diagnostic fixation (and here I’m roughly paraphrasing): “The persistent excellence of the stool has been one of this illness’ most tedious features. When will you accept that a man may be perfectly capable of a robust and complete evacuation and still be a complete stranger to reason?”
Or something to that effect. I’ll shut up now.