Letters to the Editor
New Deal Democrat
Published Letters: 206 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Environmentalism vs. Futurism
[Read the article: Back to the future]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Soviet filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky deconstructed the statist and authoritarian impulses exalted as "progress" in his 1972 science fiction film "Solaris," based on the novel by Stanislaw Lem. (I have not read the novel, and I understand it differs in many ways from Tarkovsky's film.)
In "Solaris," everything that excites your inner 12-year-old - rockets, space exploration, the discovery of new worlds - is ultimately shown to be vacuous and empty, the result of human hubris and vanity. Instead, the things that give genuine meaning to life are invariably humdrum and mundane, at least on the surface - household mementos, the warmth of a lover's smile, the beauty of a summer rain.
But that's Tarkovsky's point: that "technology" and "progress," if worshipped as an end unto themselves, only result in human alienation and estrangement, and in a living environment that's polluted and debased.
Although we in the U.S. did not suffer nearly the same catastrophes, human or environmental, as those inflicted by the Soviet government, Americans began to grapple with the environmental impact of all this so-called progress in the 1970s - thus the diminished expectations of our current era. The problem is that all these wonderful innovations have vast environmental costs when applied on a mass scale. For example, the humble automobile, that relic of the late 19th century, will greatly aggravate global pollution problems when and if everyone in China and other developing countries starts driving.
Unfortunately, we're nowhere close to finding our way out the dilemma that Tarkovsky so grandly articulated 35 years ago. We still define our status through ostentatious consumption and military might.
-
The right wing death cult
[Read the article: What Fred Thompson means by the "rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The thread of responses to Glenn's latest post have been an entertaining read and serve to illuminate current right-wing thinking in all its inane glory.
So Clinton's lying about consensual, adult sex is in every way equivalent to a Bush toady's lying about matters of national security? Well, judging by the actions of our elected officials in this regard, the former is far more serious than the latter.
I never cease to be amazed at how you can count on modern-day Republicans to be against anything - literally anything - that is supportive of humane values or, in the words of a certain Republican president, "the better angels of our nature". Social Security? Gut it! Care for wounded soldiers? Malingerers! Right to privacy? They must be hiding something!
And above all, it's their fear of anything sexual that absolutely deranges them. I simply don't know how you can have a rational discussion with someone who believes that a blowjob is a horrible affront, while the suspension of habeas corpus, the practice of torture, and the waging of illegal war are simply business as usual. I've been an American all my life, but there are times when I feel I'll never understand this country. I probably don't want to.
-
"Christianity and Totalitarianism"
[Read the article: Jerry Falwell, "agent of intolerance," dead at 73]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thomas Merton's marvelous essay predicted the rise of the Falwells, the Robertsons, the Grahams, and all the rest of their unfortunate spiritual progeny. Unfortunately, he was right about it all.
The "mass man" that these snake oil salesmen and their ilk helped to create (and then preyed upon) can only be, in Merton's sage formulation, an alienated fanatic. Paradoxically, humanism is the essence of Christianity.
The "personal Jesus" that fundamentalists like Falwell have lionized is anything but. Rather, he's the god of miracle, mystery, and authority (apologies to Dostoevsky).
-
Dieting is about the drama
[Read the article: The losers' circle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For many people, I've noticed that they approach dieting the same way they might approach a new relationship: they're bored with their life and want to try something new.
I also wonder if there's a relationship between evangelical / born again Christianity and food that hasn't been explored (the dialectic of redemption and backsliding). Moreoever, there's the element of consumerism, which knows no bounds in our culture, which says that I can simply buy this book, program, etc. and it will solve my problem.
And what about the Freudian notion of the return of the repressed? To me it's no accident that the Atkins fad came after years of being told that we shouldn't eat fat. So voila! Suddenly the high-fat diet is all the rage and we can't get enough of cheese and meat.
The fact is: a regular exercise routine is all most people need to maintain a healthy weight (whatever that may be for them). But this takes a tremendous amount of time and commitment, and people just don't want to do it. Thus all the magical thinking of diets.
-
The religious right's priorities betray its constituency
[Read the article: Tinky Winky says bye-bye to Jerry Falwell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The fact that, out of all possible issues in the world, the religious right obsesses over abortion and homosexuality (and, discreetly these days, racial minorities) is simply evidence that it's a corrupt clique run by creepy old white men.
They certainly don't seem to have any problem with divorce, especially (as another poster wrote) if it's a middle-aged man like Newt Gingrich trying to get rid of his equally middle-aged wife.
And remember that their hero, Ronald Reagan, was the first and only divorced president. Where was the outrage then? Can you imagine if Clinton had been divorced - what hay they would've made with that?
If the religious right were really so concerned about morality in general, they might choose to focus on the Sermon on the Mount, the actual words of Jesus, rather than Leviticus. But they don't. Their defenders have no retort or denial to this other than their faux-martyr act whenever anyone criticizes them.
Abortion and homosexuality, or the relaxing of societal restrictions therein, undermine the claim to sexual and psychological dominance that straight white men have enjoyed in this country from its founding. Paradoxically, what they claim as moral issues really concern the id, rather than the superego.
And that's what makes them the frauds they are.