Letters to the Editor
teslacoil'd
Published Letters: 20
-
Sins of the Fathers revisited
[Read the article: Battle of the Bushes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How interesting the blind spot the generational arguments here share. I lost my respect for what was to be "Boomers" when, in high school during the Viet Nam war, I watched the supposed anti-war movement evaporate upon the end of the draft. This, to me, was a bitter realization about this generation, and I don't think I've ever quite forgiven them for it, even though I am ostensibly part of that group. Move forward a generation, and now we are blaming them for both what they are and how they raised their kids (apathetic, etc). The curious omission is: How is it we blame Boomers for how they are and how their kids turned out, but don't blame the so-called "Greatest Generation" for how they raised their kids, who were the Boomers? Interesting to consider: If the Iraq war were a smashing success, would we even be having these discussions? The common point here may the blind spot shared by all "winners" of wars: the idea that force and violence can bring about peace; those who win wars are triumphant heros and the losers are monsters. We are trained to overlook the daily monstrosities undertaken by our earlier "heroic" generations, despite writers like Trumbo and Vonnegut and Heller depicting quite clearly what was done. It has been useful to continue the objectifying propaganda that led our parents/grandparents to believe they were right to invade another country and kill people there who were no direct threat to them. Or to firebomb or atom bomb entire cities of mothers, fathers and children for the crimes of their leaders and those who followed them. And to denigrate (or worse) those at home who objected to the crimes committed in their names.
That force and violence bring only destruction is the lesson the losers of wars learn. The winners, blinded and blessed with the security of being right because they got to tell the story, stumble forward in the unshakeable certainty of comfortable lies, snug in the illusions fed to them by a nation hungry for empire and flush with initial success. Perhaps we now are beginning to see the truth of war come full circle. Perhaps it will only be when we are broken, destitute, forced to live in the rubble we have ourselves created, that we will finally learn the lesson History has always held: There are no winners in war, only losers.
-
and blah blah blah
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, which of these candidates has acknowledged that Iran has the RIGHT, under international treaties, to develop nuclear energy and that there is ZERO proof or even evidence that Iran is pursuing The Bomb? Which of them has acknowledged the justifiable attitudes of Iran towards the US as a result of the deadly US meddling in Iran's elections, including the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected gov't and the installation of the Shah and the predations of his SAVAK? Which of them has acknowledged that the infamous "wiped off the map" comment is (even possibly) a mistranslation? It is foreign policy that has led domestic policy to where we are now - the assault on the Bill of Rights and the attack on very substance of the Constitution. Who is willing to look hard at that? Which of them is talking about the unhealthy influence of AIPAC? Which of them is talking about stopping the drain of our tax dollars by closing the 700+ US mililtary bases around the world? Which of them is willing to talk directly about the dubious usefulness, role and function of NATO in a world where Europe is no longer threatened by a Soviet Union?
Ahh, no. Best to stick to those vague pronouncements of "change" and "hope" and let us fill in the blanks so as to better project our naive hopes onto the candidate then to have him/her actually talk specifically about beliefs and ideas concerning the country's direction in the 21st C. Go ahead, look at the HillBama websites. You will find NOTHING specific about ANY of those crucial issues. Historic election? Yeah, American style. Like it says in the supermarket - Great New Look! Same Old Crap Inside! There isn't a dime's worth of difference between HillBama and the Republi-cons. They are corrupt to their core. Look for the candidate willing to talk about subjects we are uncomfortable to hear. We deeply need to be discomforted - not by hearing what "he" (the chump in the White House) has been doing to "us", but what we, as a nation, have been doing to the world during the 50+ years of our spell of self-righteous narcissism. A spell that has afflicted the country both "Left" and "Right". That's where to start with hope. Need a clue? Who is the corporate/mainstream media studiously ignoring? That is the candidate who's willing to challenge the status quo. The rest are poseurs questing for power for its own sake.
-
There is no such thing as rock bottom
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is just embarassingly stupid, and I'm not even an Obama fan. Just when you think this appalling election can't go lower, that's when you discover there really is no such thing as rock bottom, just the limit of how much we are willing to tolerate individually and collectively. Sure hope we get there soon.