Letters to the Editor
Vardaman
Published Letters: 23 Editor's Choice: 6
-
More on the Headscarf Business
[Read the article: To Damascus with Nancy Pelosi]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know most of these letters have already covered the ground of rebutting the initial letter attacking Speaker Pelosi for wearing a headscarf. But there is one piece of information that I don't see anyone discussing. Victoria asks why Nancy Pelosi would go to a mosque at all. The answer is pretty simple. The Umayyad Mosque which Pelosi visited contained a shrine believed to contain the head of John the Baptist, a revered prophet in both Islamic and Christian traditions. Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic and made the sign of the cross in front of The Baptist's shrine as an act both of personal religious pilgrimage and solidarity with Syria's million Christians, who have at best a tenuous relationship with the Assad regime.
Unless you are willing to criticize the Catholic Speaker of the House for attending Mass conducted by a sexist and sexually oppressive priesthood in the United States, then her decision to visit a mosque for what are, primarily, personal religious reasons is just more Islamophobia of the worst sort. The most powerful woman in American history wearing a headscarf is no more offensive than her carrying a rosary. Indeed, seeing a proud, powerful woman standing in a mosque making the sign of the cross while doing her best not to offend her hosts is as profound a rebuke to the sexism inherent in all religions as I can imagine.
-
The Real Point
[Read the article: This little piggy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't you get it? Heather's biggest point is that as parents swear less, children swear more. I've spoken to a number of long-time school teachers who, in recent years, have been called a bitch so often by their students that it's no longer worth anything but an indifferent shrug. A mere fifteen years ago, when a classmate of mine called our English teacher a bitch it was the talk of the entire school for weeks! I was so excited to tell my parents of this shocking event, but had to spend hours delicately parsing how to tell the story without saying the b-word. Children are becoming thoughtless pigs by the millions and no one, especially not their parents, are going to do anything about it less they be labeled as "abusers."
The most obnoxious people I know are universally those raised by the most carefree, do-as-you-please parents. The decision to label all attempts to correct children's inappropriate behavior as "abuse" is just another way of foisting the responsibility for parenting onto someone, or no one, else.
Alec Baldwin had a planned phone date with his daughter, with whom he does not live, and she decided not to bother following through. If that's how she decides to live her life, she should be prepared to be called far worse than a "pig" by employers, friends, boyfriends and yes, even her parents.
-
Weighty and Substantive?
[Read the article: Duncan Hunter on the attack]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two of the three letters praise the leaflet for being substantive and for not even being an attack ad. Yes, an ad can be legitimate and true and STILL be an attack ad (which is at least one good reason for the Supreme Court to finally get off its ass and void the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Act.) But, Hunter's ad remains pretty slimy and, at the very least, disingenuous.
Note that he doesn't mention the positions of candidates who might agree with him. On abortion and gay marriage he mentions only Romney and Giuliani, not McCain or Brownback. On immigration, no mention of even his fellow minor candidates like Tancredo. Furthermore, all his quotes from Romney are 13 years old and Romney has openly repudiated those positions. Whether or not he's sincere in that repudiation is a valid question for conservative voters, but to simply ignore that repudiation is most certainly dishonest on Hunter's part.
-
Attacks From The Past
[Read the article: Duncan Hunter on the attack]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I posted a comment above calling this ad an indisputable attack ad and pointing out a number of ways in which it fails to be completely honest. As the discussion above, minus Scherer's defense of his own posting, continues to equate the very idea of negative attack ads with dishonesty, which is not always the case, I thought I'd remind Salon's readers of one of the most devastating and effective pieces of rhetoric delivered in recent decades. It's not from a campaign ad, but instead from a speech delivered on the floor of the Senate by Ted Kennedy within moments of Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."
Nothing in Kennedy's scathing speech was factually inaccurate. Try as it might, Bork couldn't shake the image portrayed, because his stated stances on a wide range of prior Court decisions proved that Kennedy was telling the truth. But no one would possibly characterize Kennedy's speech as anything but an attack and it certainly isn't positive.
"Positive" campaign ads are those that highlight the candidate's record, usually without mentioning opponents, or highlight the candidate's family and character. Any ad which takes issue with the stated or perceived positions of an opponent with the intent to convince voters to oppose that opponent is an attack ad.
All the sad rhetorical nonsense we keep spewing about "keeping the campaign clean" is a big reason why people don't seem to be able to understand what a negative ad is, much less why they work so damn well. Voters don't just want a reason TO vote for a candidate, they want a reason to vote AGAINST the other guy. And that's perfectly fair and reasonable.
Hunter's ad still, I would maintain, does a disservice by claiming all other Republicans are wrong and then only mentioning those with whom he disagrees. But that has nothing to do with the veracity or negativity of the flier.