Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2095 Editor's Choice: 18
-
M.B.F.
[Read the article: Feel the surge of the Victory Caucus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think properly executed, satire should work this way. People saw the disjunction in what they were saying ... they just didn't go the next step and draw the conclusion that your comment was insincere (and thus satire.)
True, but I use that tone/style fairly often in my posts, and this is the first time I can recall that it's created mass confusion and a resulting need for a discussion/examination of it (which is always the unmistakable (and cringe-inducing) sign that satire/humor/sacrasm has gone terribly awry somewhere along the way).
As KRISTEN points out, those who have read me for awhile and especially know the commenters like C.O. would probably be more likely to get the point, whereas those less familiar would be less likely to -- although, in this case, the short-circuiting seemed to apply across the board, which is why I am blaming myself for the mess (not to the point of suicidal inclinations or loss of self-esteem or anything, just accepting that the blame may lie in awkward execution). I think the real problem was that it was sort of a double dose of it - first C.O.'s satirical comment, then mine, posing as an acceptance of C.O.'s disagreement with my post, none of which was literally true.
I think it just all spiralled out of control, but a sense of calm has now been restored. Then again, we could just all agree that it was all Casual Observer's fault for starting the whole thing and spend the rest of the night attacking him. That might be a good way to recover.
-
Ahmadinejad
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]President Ahmadinejad is an effectively powerless figurehead in Iran. His office's duties are subservient to the Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, who if I'm reading reports right, is quietly taking steps to reign in Ahmadinejad without also undermining Iran's position.
I think it overstates the case to say that he is a "powerless figurehead," but it is unquestionably true that his power has been exaggerated significantly by those seeking to use his extremism to justify war with Iran (many of the same people pumping up Ahmadinejad's importance now previously insisted that the position of President in IRan was totally irrelevant and impotent. Why? Becuase it was previously occupied by a reformist/moderate, so they wanted to insist that he had no power).
Between the U.S. and Iran over the last four years, Iran has clearly been more open to negotiation and agreements than the U.S. That is just fact. Still, the Iranian government is tryannical and oppressive and shouldn't be glorified either, and whatever the extent of his power might be, the behavior and thinking of Ahmadinejad with regard to the "need to show strength to one's enemies" seem awfully similar to those who dominate our own executive branch.
-
Wes:
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To Keep in mind that, over the last 15 or 20 years, we have killed many more civilians than Bin Laden has. How many more would be just a guess. I'd say 10-1 minimum.
So what? Do you doubt that he would have killed many, many more people if he had the capability? Are you trying to give him moral credit because he was constrained from undertaking more violence?
I hope nothing I wrote prompts defenses of Osama bin Laden or even Saddam Hussein and others. Nothing I wrote was intended to express any sympathy whatosever for the mindset and behavior of Islamic extremists or secular Middle Eastern tyrants.
-
Wes:
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we had not had such an intrusive presence in that area of the world 9-11 may well have never happened.
Fair enough. Whether we ought to be occupying Middle Eastern countries, controlling and propping up governments there, involving ourselves in seemingly every aspect of regional political struggles, is definitely a debate we ought to be having. Obviously, if we do that, we are going to make enemies, and we should debate and decide whether whatever benefits we think we get from that involvement (access to oil resources, protection of Israel, general influence) outweighs the risks and harms, including an increase in anti-American resentment and terrorist attacks which result from that.
People who raised these issues in October, 2001 or February, 2002 were attacked with the greatest viciousness and rendered complete outcasts. The country clearly wasn't ready for that discussion then. But it should be -- and, I think, is -- now.
-
Raj:
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, conservatives have a low tolerance for ambiguity. Hence the need to view things as purely good or purely bad, and the obsessive disdain for "moral relativism." Their world is black and white. No grays.
The second conclusion, according to Psychology Today: "Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative."
I agree with all of this (and it was realy the principal point of John Dean's book), but I think it explains not only the attraction of pro-Bush conservatives to an absolutist moralistic worldview, but also the attraction which such a worldview has for Islamic fundamentalists (or anyone else who ends up submitting to an all-consuming, absolutist theology).
Complexity and uncertainty scare people and make them feel weak and vulnerable. Whoever can take those feelings away and make them feel protected and strong will earn their limitless allegiance.