Letters to the Editor
Jeffrey P. Harrison
Published Letters: 354 Editor's Choice: 39
-
This guy needs some help
[Read the article: How the left caused 9/11, by Dinesh D'Souza]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Trying to cast this whole discussion in terms of left and right wing/liberal and conservative is about as useful as trying to see science through the prism of feminism as was done a few years back. Science was not created by males to oppress the females. The world does not see America's actions as left wing or right wing and the actual meaning of left/right liberal/conservative is pretty squidgy anyway. They see the actions and they don't associate it with some political persuasion. A few examples may be instructive.
The notorious right winger Reagan supported the dictators that previous American regimes had essentially installed in Central American countries to the detriment of popular movements that sought greater democratization of their governments. Nicaragua is, of course, the example that was in the papers at the time. The notorious left winger Clinton blew up an aspirin factory and attacked some rebel training camps in Afghanistan after the attacks on American embassies in southern Africa. I usually look at things from a turn-about is fair play perspective. How would we Americans like it if, for example, China started funding and arming white supremacist groups here? Launching cruise missiles at a country has another name, it's called an act of war. How would we like it if others in the world got pissed off at something we'd done and launched random attacks on the United States?
Of course, we have answers to these questions. When the Chinese were seen to be interfering with American political processes during the Clinton regime, the outrage was palpable. And I don't think that I need comment on the American reaction to a couple of random attacks on the United States collectively known as 9/11. Why would we think that others would react differently than we do? Just because the US has the baddest military on the planet doesn't mean that they react any differently than we do. It just means that they are powerless to act on the reaction.
And, of course, Mr. D'Souza mentions Iran. I personally think that the white hot anger towards Iran stems from the fact that they are one of the few countries that have successfully kicked our ass out. That and the fact that at a cost of a couple of hundred thousand dead Iranians they managed to thwart the American backed attack by Saddam Hussein on their country in the '80s. I was living and working in Tehran in early January 1979 when Fred (the Shah was an autocrat - criticism of the Shah, public or otherwise, could get you thrown out of the country so you referred to him as Fred. I have a few stories about that but there isn't enough room here.) left and fuzz face came in. Mr. D'Souza conveniently fails to mention that during the Eisenhower regime the CIA fomented a coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossedeq that reinstalled the Shah in Iran. I learned that shortly after I arrived in Iran in early 1977. I didn't need a 2007 article in the NYT to tell me. Can you imagine American reaction should the KGB have fomented a coup here and installed some dictator?
Mr. D'Souza, it wasn't the left or right that caused 9/11. It was the pervasive exercise of American arrogance in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
Nice spin
[Read the article: Feminine wiles in the workplace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But...
Women can get ahead by flirting (and beyond) and men really can't. Male and female attitudes towards sexuality are neither the similar nor symmetrical. Coupled with the fact that advancement in management has at least as much to do with office politics as it does with skill, women who are willing to use their sex in the cause of their advancement have an advantage over their male colleagues.
With respect to being invited to "traditional male bonding activities", I wouldn't do it. And it's because I have something against women. They won't play the way we want to play when we're doing that. A number of years ago, I was at a picnic hosted by someone I knew from work. Everybody worked at the same firm and we had spousal units and offspring there as well. Four of us guys started playing horseshoes which quickly became a "TMBA". It was just as coarse and rough edged as it always is with plenty of insults, chain pulling, breast beating, and plenty of hilarity at the expense of any and all of us. So after we'd crushed our wimpso opposition (reality: we'd merely won more games than they had, and, most importantly, the last one), the opposition said, "Fine, we give, you guys take on some other challengers." Two persons of the female persuasion showed up to play. We treated them exactly as we had treated our previous opponents and expected to be treated the same way back. This quickly proved to be unacceptable. About half way through the first game, we were loudly called unfair, mean, and male chauvinist pigs which, of course, was total bullshit (and the end of the game). We were playing by traditional male bonding rules and we had accepted them into that role despite their curvaceous shapes. They didn't like it and my answer is: "That's too damn bad." I can and have played where behavior etc is tailored to feminine sensibilities and that's fine but if you're talking about "traditional male bonding", you play by our rules or you don't play. So when a bunch of guys want to go out and have some fun, we aren't going to be inviting women.
PS. When I say traditional male bonding rules, I am not talking about the asinine man law or man rule crap you see occasionally in stupid commercials.