Letters to the Editor
just another day
Published Letters: 35 Editor's Choice: 2
-
On types of betrayal
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, I haven't had time to dredge through theimmense pile of letters here, but what's going on seems pretty straightforward to me.
Of course Obama's been aware of Wright's more wingnut views (Government spreading AIDS and so forth), and of course he's long known that Wright's rhetoric (in the context of America as a whole, rather than a black urban Chicago church) can be inflammatory. But you know what? In the United States of America even your closest associates are allowed to believe and say whatever they want, and Obama clearly felt that there was more to be gained by association with Wright than lost. I think I concur with Joan's feeling that Obama is a relatively secular churchgoer; not necessarily insincere in his faith, but more concerned with the social and community aspects of church than the strictly religious, and this would tend to reinforce that Wright's more extreme positions were not particularly significant to their relationship.
So, first off, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing at all that Obama likely chose a church for "political" (i.e. not purely faith-based) reasons. Leaving aside any far-future national political ambitions, it evidently helped his work as a community organizer and local politician to be a member of the church, for reasons of image, certainly, but also (and I think more importantly) for reasons purely practical: it's hard to be an active, productive (prestigious) member of a community if you're not actually a participatory member of said community. By taking part in the life of Trinity United, by gaining access to its resources (logistical and interpersonal), Obama was able to do his job better. Nothing wrong with that. And if it is the case that this was the reasoning behind his choice of church and pastor, he clearly chose well; nobody I've heard has questioned the good the church and Wright have done in the community. There is more than one valid reason to choose a church.
So, being a member of Wright's congregation helps him professionally and socially, gives him standing in the community, has an unknowable but presumably positive impact on his spiritual life. Wright, who is inarguably possessed of ferocious intelligence, is useful as a mentor even if he has some funny beliefs. Obviously, once Obama became a presidential candidate, things that Wright has said in the past came into the public eye, but that's what his speech of a month or so ago was about, and by and large this seemed to put the issue to rest.
What's going on here is very different. This is not things Wright has said over the years coming to public attention; this is Wright taking his most divisive and inflammatory views and broadcasting them, and implying in his delivery that they are views shared by Barack Obama. At the very least it can be said that he's clearly not at all concerned about potential damage done to Obama's campaign, and he may even be, for whatever reason, actively trying to harm it (although I'm highly skeptical about theories as to his collusion with the Clinton campaign or Republican interests).
This is a personal betrayal, and this is why Obama is outraged. He should be. A longstanding associate and probably even friend (although we cannot know how close the two men actually were personally, it also really doesn't matter) has used Obama's hard-earned prominence to, indirectly, attack him. Yes, we have to trust that that Wright honestly believes what he's saying, but he also certainly knows that expressing these views at this time and in this way will cause Obama difficulty. It's one thing when an eccentric member of your adopted family holds somewhat dubious views, it's another thing when he presumes to express them on your behalf, particularly when you are under close, often hostile scrutiny from the entire nation. The views are not all that important, but their delivery is, and I think Obama's explicit rejection of Wright is both the correct thing to do politically and personally. I see no hypocrisy.
-
Yes, but...
[Read the article: Who needs a fancy hybrid? Get a camel!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ironically, I believe there are alternate energy sources that can power a car with significantly less carbon output (particularly given their comparative, er, horsepower) than a Clydesdale or a camel. Also, lower water cost. We're dealing with climate change and food shortage as well as an energy crisis, after all.
-
Washington state
[Read the article: The groom will be changing his name]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have a friend in Washington state who changed his surname to his wife's upon marriage (and then back, after they divorced), so far as I know without any undue difficulty.
He was, of course, frequently put on the spot as to why he made this decision (as was my own mother, who kept her maiden name when she married my father): so far as I know, it was simply that he and his wife wanted to share a name, didn't want to hyphenate, and decided to take the road less traveled. There may also have been aesthetic reasons for the choice. This rather than a repudiation of his parents, or any indicator of relative status or seniority within the marriage, although it is probably worth noting that his ex-wife is more than a decade his senior.
-
It's an old lesson
[Read the article: It's hard to be a warrior girl on a bum knee]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe I'm particularly sensitive right now because I'm educating myself on the history of the feminist movement (a history which, noble though it is, does have its share of unpleasantness and bone-headedness), but statements like that last from Sokolove really bother me. This is a particular lesson that seems to have some trouble sticking: acknowledging that men and women are different, in real, concrete (biological) ways is not anti-woman in any way.
In this case (as you've noted), quite the opposite is true: failing to address what is clearly quite a significant reality of how young women's bodies work is doing them grave disservice, even if it will cut in to their practice time when compared to their male counterparts.
Would we refuse to provide adequate groin protection to male athletes in a predominantly female sport because it could slightly decrease flexibility and range of motion?