Letters to the Editor
New Deal Democrat
Published Letters: 210 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Dodd's betrayal
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I guess Harry Reid was right when he said, in not so many words back in December, that the warrantless wiretapping vote would have to wait until after the primary season had winnowed the field and certain politicians weren't using this issue to grandstand anymore.
I don't pretend to understand the arcane rules of the Senate, but couldn't Dodd, Feingold, and others at least try to get some publicity by staging a genuine filibuster? Why would they agree to Reid/McConnell rules? What do they have to lose by at least holding things up for a day or two?
-
Just plain embarrassing
[Read the article: Berkeley retreats from Marine Corps ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Events like this go a long way toward providing ammunition for the right.
First, the city council issues a rash, poorly thought out, grandstanding statement condemning a whole branch of the military. Then, unable or unwilling to acknowledge that - gasp - there might be fallout, they immediately back down when there's a ruckus, but only a half-hearted passsive-aggressive way.
Thus, by its actions, the city council proves that it's both stupid AND cowardly.
Besides, why are the kids of Berkeley special? Why should military recruiters be allowed to go everywhere but there? It couldn't be because of the residents' comparable wealth and privilege, could it? Oh, I forgot, they're "liberal".
-
Movies are always political
[Read the article: "Jumper"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whether Hannaham is correct in his assessment of "Jumper" I can't say, but posters here who try to lamely assert that "it's only a movie" (meaning it therefore can't possibly possess any social or political significance) show an extreme ignorance of how ideology works.
Since at least the time of Siegfried Kracauer, a German intellectual whose book "From Caligari to Hitler" detailed the ways in which Weimar cinema's nihilism helped pave the way for fascism, it has been commonly held in the humanities that movies, by virtue of their collectively produced nature, are in fact remarkable repositories of cultural values.
In short, escapism is never just escapism. That doesn't mean you have to try and analyze all its ideological components; maybe you don't care and are just interested in a good story. Nor does it mean that all escapism is somehow malevolent. But to assert that it all exists in the realm of pure fantasy - with no relation to the actual world from which it sprang - is pure bunk.
-
"Regional adventurism" and other concerns
[Read the article: Getting through these dark times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While Ms. Power's views are refreshingly sane (in contrast to those emanating constantly from the Strangelove administration), I find her statements to be less honest or forthright than many contributers here, and believe they still reflect problematic "received" knowledge of the foreign policy establishment.
First of all, what does she mean by Russia's "regional adventurism"? Their occupation of Chechnya? Their attempt to influence elections and/or the governments of surrounding states? How is that any different from what the U.S. does? We fought a bloody civil war in the 19th century to keep states from leaving the union. Is the Chechen conflict really meaningfully different from that? Moreover, doesn't the Iraq debacle permanently disqualify the U.S. from lecturing others about "adventurism"? In our case it's not even "regional".
Secondly, I just don't know how we can even begin to have an honest dialogue or engagement with Iran without acknowledging our role in subverting democratic reform in their country 50 years ago. The U.S. and Britain were directly responsible for the Shah and all his repression, torture, and general brutality. Would it kill us to simply admit that and - gasp - even apologize for what we did? Why should the Iranians believe a word we say? Where has that gotten them in the past?
Whatever her strong points, I think we have to realize that Ms. Power has forfeited her academic independence to become an auxiliary of a political campaign. The lack of honesty, the coyness of her answers, suggests that the double standards (one for us, one for every other country) that have created our current predicament have still not been addressed.
-
Skeptical about Obama's support among white evangelicals
[Read the article: How to turn white evangelicals into Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope I'm proven wrong about this on Election Day, , and I'm pulling for him all the way, but I'm not yet drinking the "evangelicals love Obama" kool-aid.
Take it from someone who grew up in a small southern town: plain old racism is one of the primary factors in the rise of the religious right and Republicanism in general. It's simply a truth of American political history that the Democratic party's embrace of minority and women's rights drove white men into the embrace of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. The religious justification followed.
I'm sorry to burst Sullivan's bubble, but in my experience, underneath all the polite exteriors, evangelicals are right out of the 13th century. They're nearly impervious to rational argument.
As the 2000 election proved, that most erudite phrase of right-wing rationalization, "states' rights," was ultimately hollow to its core. What we've seen since then is the attempt by evangelicals to ram their religion down everyone's throat using all the power and resources of the government, which they supposedly disdained. To name a few examples of which we are all only too aware: funding of "faith-based" initiatives, onerous restrictions on abortion in foreign aid that also restrict birth control and family planning info. in general, attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution to officially make gay people into second-class citizens.
Through it all, (white) evangelicals have been perfectly content to overlook the fact that what brought their guy to power was rank disenfranchisement of minority voters by illegal or quasi-legal means. Without the notorious purging of the voter rolls in Florida in 2000, none of this would have come to pass.
At this early stage of the game, Obama gives white evangelicals the opportunity to pretend - both to themselves and others - that they're not really racist reactionaries at heart. They may get their chance to prove it this fall, but don't be surprised if the "Obama is secretly a Muslim" meme takes root.