Letters to the Editor
Valkyrie607
Published Letters: 121 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Hypocrisy Repeats Endlessly, Like Fractals
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This post from Elephantman caught my eye. I'm sure many have commented on it since he posted it. But I want to add my $0.02.
Good God, am I the only one who is struck by this kind of language and invective from Glenn Greenwald?
"Joe Lieberman['s]... bloodthirsty neoconservative fanaticism..."
When was the last time that anyone remembers Glenn Greenwald mention the truly bloodthirsty fanatacism of Hamas, or the Sadrist militias, or any number of Qaeda-like groups or spinoffs responsible for blowing up markets, restaurants, police stations, office buildings and the like? And whose fundamentalist religious leaders more or less openly preach terrorism to their followers? The folks who recruit pregnant women and handicapped children to strap on bomb vests loaded with ball bearings?
This is, frankly, a powerfully weird extension of the left-wing echo chamber, is it not? To talk about a United States Senator in terms like "bloodthirsty fanatacism"?
I hazard a guess that Glenn Greenawld and his partner might be treated much nicer in the Senate office of Joe Lieberman, or in Connecticut, than if they took a long romantic weekend in Syria, Iran, Somalia or the Sudan.
-- Elephantman
This pattern is becoming too familiar. A critic of the government speaks up about policies s/he believes are wrong. In this case, it's Glenn. "Bloodthirsty fanatacism" is a fair description of McCain-Leiberman policies. Sending thousands to die, and to kill tens of thousands, for doubtful reasons--that's bloodthirsty. Doing it even when evidence, expert opinion, and common sense cry out not to--that's fanaticism. One could legitimately make an argument to the contrary, but Elephantman doesn't even try. Instead, he faults Glenn for failing to properly denounce Al-Qaeda or Hamas or Sadrist militias.
The key difference here, and the reason Glenn doesn't go around denouncing and renouncing terrorists, is that Hamas and Al-Qaeda don't work for us. Nobody expects them to act ethically. McCain and Leiberman are in OUR government, purporting to represent the interests of Americans. We expect them to obey the law and act in the interests of America. Hamas and Al-Quaeda make no such claims. It is so revealing of the bankrupt philosophy Elephantman subscribes to that the only way he can respond to criticism of the immorality of the neocon strategy is to compare it to his idea of our worst, least ethical enemies.
His comment ends up as a crude threat: Glenn shouldn't criticize Leiberman and McCain for being bloodthirsty fanatics, because otherwise the even more unethical, bloodthirstier fanatics will somehow bring pain and suffering Glenn and his partner.
Americans need to rescue the idea of morality from the sexual ghetto it's been confined to by the right-wing "family values" crusaders. This war has been an affront to ordinary decency, justice, and humanity from day one. Elephantman's defense of the warmongers reveals that immorality even further.
-
Media Mavens Circle the Wagons
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The NYTimes "Opinionator" blog so helpfully linked to this little nugget of idiocy...
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/the_personal_is_political_2.php
Picking a man (or woman) to hold the office of the Presidency is an awesome responsibility: By voting to elevate Barack Obama or John McCain or anyone to the White House, you’re voting to vest an immense amount of responsibility in a single individual; indeed, you're essentially voting to grant them the sort of powers that the monarchs of old could only dream about. Yes, of course, Presidents are restrained by Congress and the Courts and the Constitution (well, sometimes), but there’s still a very real sense in which we’re electing a temporary king. And what was true in the court of European rulers way back when is likewise true for modern American Presidents: The personal is political. By this I mean that when we elect a new chief executive, we aren’t just electing to live with their policy positions. We’re deciding to live with their personalities – their sexual appetites and Daddy issues, their spouses and their friends, their religious beliefs and their psychodramas – for four or eight long years.
Pundits... it's like the soles of their feet are finally starting to feel a bit warm, and they don't like it at all.
-
The One-Drop Madness is Still With Us
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One thing that drives me mad is when people use the word "literally" to mean its opposite, that is, "metaphorically." TexanGirl, if Berke Breathed "kills you," "literally," then how the hell are you posting here??
Balitwilight, thanks for exposing the madness of racialism in America. Your comments are right on.
If could expand for a moment...
Somebody mentioned the fact that in America, "one drop" of African blood makes you black. This is true, but did you ever stop to think why? The reasons why are disturbing, something Americans prefer not to think about: the reason is that without that rigid racialist system of categorization, the whole system of slavery would have broken down. After all, when a slave master rapes a slave (which happened frequently, as you can see today from the rich variety of skin tones among the folks whom we call "black"), the child would be both "white" and "black." The one-drop rule served to ensure that children of such encounters would remain classified as "black," hence remain in slavery, and would not challenge the system of racialism by which slavery operated.
Today, we no longer have slavery, but we still have this stupid one-drop mentality. Isn't there something wrong with that? Doesn't that show that we still have a lot of baggage to deal with regarding race?