Letters to the Editor
New Deal Democrat
Published Letters: 206 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Vidal's theses are too dark for most earnest liberals
[Read the article: Too much Gore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's not make the discussion about Gore Vidal another tired forum for Gen Xers to beat up on Baby Boomers and vice versa. For starters, Vidal predates the Boomers by 20 years, so the argument that he represents the Boomers is just silly.
I have found Vidal's insights, gleaned over a long, thoughtful life, to be invaluable in shaping my admittedly dark view of our government and the unfortunate trajectory of American politics in recent years. What you find in Vidal is consistent, unwavering criticism of the American public's tendency to infantilize themselves, and the accompanying slip towards totalitarianism and autocracy. I would challenge anyone who believes that the U.S. government does not, day by day, and with more alacrity than ever (thanks to the carte blanche of the "war on terror") try to chip away at our civil liberties and make us dependent, passive sheep. Isn't the entire history of the U.S. in the last five years testament to Vidal's prescience?
As to his "defense" of Timothy McVeigh, this is a classic case of Vidal being provocative to make a point. As I understand it, his point is mainly that the U.S. government has been complicit in (if not having entirely engineered) the dispossession of rural Americans - think farm crises - since World War II. You'll find a number of more conventionally left-wing thinkers take the same position, namely Wendell Berry.
Vidal's contention is that McVeigh, a small-town guy from rural, economically depressed upstate New York, is a perfect example of how dispossessed people behave: they blow things up. Whether they are Palestinians or Chechens or Irish, it matters little. Agree or disagree, but this is not a simple-minded defense of a man whose actions were indeed monstrous.
I'll close simply by saying that you can see the implications of Vidal's argument in the current "debate" over illegal immigration. The fact is: it's in the interests of the economic elite in this country to have lots and lots of cheap labor. That's what led to disastrous U.S. farm policy over the years (get those independent, landowning people off the farm) and that is why anyone who believes the U.S. government will ever do anything meaningful to stem the tide of cheap labor coming from Latin America is deluded.
-
Andrew Sullivan - what an idiot
[Read the article: Penalty Boxer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My favorite part of all this is Andrew Sullivan - the personification of the gay peanut gallery - chiming in to pronounce Boxer's comments "homophobic".
I'm not sure why anyone would care what Sullivan thinks anymore, as he's been forced to backpedal on his bizarre, pseudo-erotic enthusiasm for George W. by that pesky thing called reality.
Memo to you Andrew: most of us workaday gays and lesbians (who are not professional homosexuals like yourself) saw through George W. from the very beginning, when he unfortunately defeated the late, great Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas.
Nor would most of us characterize Boxer's comment as in any way "homophobic". Only an ignoramus like you, always eager to carry water for people who hold you in contempt, would make such a blatantly stupid remark.
I'm not a parent, but I would do anything in my power to prevent my nephew or several young cousins in my family (one of whom is in high school - close to draft age) from being sacrificed as cannon fodder in the Bush/Cheney war of choice and profit. The Bushes and Cheneys are the ones who will make money off this - if and when Iraqi oil ever becomes commercially viable. Let them send their kids to fight for it.
-
Mediocrity is what the Academy rewards
[Read the article: Deconstructing Oscar: Safe, sunshiny choices]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Last year all those so-called Hollywood liberals showed what they were really made of when they gave the Best Picture award to a patently mediocre film - "Crash" - instead of to the quietly groundbreaking, beautifully-crafted "Brokeback Mountain".
Of course this is nothing new, as other posters have noted. What can you think of an institution that never awarded Oscars (except honorary ones in some cases) to Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, or Robert Altman? This year they have yet another chance to give it to Martin Scorsese, who's been passed up for the likes of Kevin Costner in years past. I'll fall out of my chair if the guy actually wins it.
There are cases of exceptional films winning the awards ("Midnight Cowboy," the "Godfather" films) but these are simply few and far between. The Oscars are about networking and following the lastest fad - not artistic excellence.
-
Clinton and Edwards are both cowards
[Read the article: The ladies man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's true that just about anyone plucked off the street would be a better president than what we have now. But frankly, I'm really tired of all these pusillanimous Democrats who only voted for the Iraq war authorization out of political expediency.
That vote was one of the few moments where you really get to see what a politician is made of. When the going gets rough, will they stand on their principles, or will they fold?
Unfortunately, a majority of Democrats flunked the test, and yet they're more or less the ones we're presented with as presidential candidates for 2008. The ones with real courage when that ill-conceived vote was taken in 2002 were people like Russ Feingold and the late, great Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was running for reelection that year - and his poll numbers actually went up after he voted against the war authorization. So much for the conventional wisdom that anyone who voted against it would be demolished.
These lame Democrats' excuses and their non-apology apologies are a little too much for me to stomach. The fact is, if they had one ounce of leadership in their pathetic bodies, 3,000 Americans and untold Iraqis might still be alive today. Why should we be eager to pledge our allegiance to any of them? They haven't shown any to the best interests of the American people.