Letters to the Editor
-
I think Clinton and Lamott do basically agree
but what Lamott is criticizing is the way the Right has defined the abortion issue and Clinton has fallen into their language.
Now I'm sure Clinton is doing that for the excellent reason that she is running for president. She is also articulating something that is, undeniably, true: that prohibiting abortion doesn't *prevent* abortion at all. It simply drives the practice underground with disasterous consequences.
But Lamott's point also comes at a basic ... and lately ignored truth ... that ending a pregnancy is often the best possible option, a life saving option, even a moral option. And that the entire argument against abortion is always around the fetus/baby's quest for existence, as if the mother's life were incidental. That is never true.
-
free speech means what it says...
...or it means nothing
LBS made good points; and i kinda-sorta understand the center-left, left-center, progressive-ish dem'rats desire to remain above the fray and be all calm and dignified and agreeable and deferential and turn-the-other-cheekish and shit... (oops, i *knew* i couldn't do it)
HOWEVER...
IF this site -or other public/semi-public venues- are to purport to allowing free speech (which -to their credit- this site kinda-sorta does), then its gotta be warts and all...
ain't NO such thing as 'pretty' free speech (in more ways than one)...
the Most Important Free Speech, is that which validly criticizes The Powers That Be and calls them to account; after all, it IS the way The System (tm) is Supposed to work...
(the reality is that it is being suppressed, repressed, and compressed to the point of nothingness...)
BESIDES the fact that i disagree with several unstated and unchalleneged premises which run throughout discussions about 'free speech':
1. i am not here (the quasi-public commons) to represent the consensus viewpoint of neither the 'average' saloonist, nor any other party/person; these are my words, i say them, i (mostly) mean them, and whether others agree or not, is (mostly) besides the point... because that IS the point: joe and jane sixpack, senior citizen, young turk, old pro, marginalized minority, crazy uncle, and every one else gets to join the discussion...
2. i Absolutely Reject the reichwing/mainstream media framing of dirty words=bad people/bad thoughts/bad ideas... what utter rubbish, what childish twaddle; please STOP this infantile childproofing of the planet... those buying into this false premise ARE repressing free speech, period...
3. i Absolutely Reject the very concept of 'dirty' words; they are essentially arbitrary and class-imposed 'taboos'... it makes No Sense: are you going to tell me that it is okay for jon stewart (or whoever) to refer to people as 'pussies' on teevee, and you are *really* going to maintain that he means li'l kuddly kitty kats ? ? ?
bwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaa
4. i *don't* require people i communicate with to use or not use 'dirty' words, or any other limitations; i expect the same of them... when/if i do run across 'dirty' words, i -somehow- manage to read them in the context and accept/reject their appropriate usage based on the most amazing mental feats of readership heretofore unavailable to some minority of the population...
5. Absolutely Reject the 'theory' that the open comments on ANY blog/site Anywhere can be ascribed, attributed, or otherwise identified with the site/owners, UNLESS they specifically endorse such words...
playing moronic games of faux-gotcha over such trivialities is silly...
(the issue of the tone and tenor of comments of reich wing sites versus progressive sites is valid, however...)
6. christ-on-a-crutch, we got evil minions of doom destroying our country in innummerable ways, and sheeple bleat about a grain of sand in their cud...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
-
What a challenge . . .
Art guerrilla, I've read your letter a few times, and I think I'll be thinking about it for a while. You challenge me.
My favorite current book is _As for Me I Choose to Stay and Fight_ by Margaret Cho. I have it on CD and listen to it whenever I'm beginning to feel too brainwashed in this strange world.
She is powerful, articulate, and compassionate. She makes a great point about the need in our culture to always refer to the thoughts of 'old white men.' She doesn't mean individuals, nor is she denigrating people for being old or male (not her style) -- she's talking about a cultural proclivity to rely on one source as authoritative. All other voices are marginalized.
(She's not afraid to use any language she wants: that's part of why I find her so freeing, and so 'right on.')
So the academic voice is the acceptable voice too. So I feel more authoritative for using the word 'denigrating' instead of some other word. So, in the end, I'm left with more questions than answers.
I respect your words and your challenge.
The only issue I can't concede on is abuse -- but abuse doesn't necessarily stem from vulgarity or profanity. I think sometimes the worst form of abuse is the well-formed, articulate argument that logically, reasonably and with great substantiation justifies another's erasure.
-
Elaine,
I get what you're saying now. Thanks for the explanation.
-
Art Guerrilla, you so nailed it . . .
" . . .i kinda-sorta understand the center-left, left-center, progressive-ish dem'rats desire to remain above the fray and be all calm and dignified and agreeable and deferential and turn-the-other-cheekish and shit... (oops, i *knew* i couldn't do it.)"
You so nailed me. I didn't think anyone was onto my act.
F*** You! No, I take that back . . . Darn you! (Oops, I knew I couldn't do it.)
Thanks.
I needed to laugh.
At myself, apparently.
-
Not A Slap!
When I was a teenager, my mom slapped me once. I don't remember what I said, just that it was something awful that I should have been slapped for. She did not want me to be an automaton when she did it. She wanted me to not be an asshole.
I was over it in a couple hours.
We're still very close, despite such vicious abuse from a Sunday-School-teaching woman who was nearly a foot shorter than me at the time.
-
To Ben
Ben- please refer to the letters pages of the Lamott slapping article for an in-depth and heated debate about this issue.
I am still resolute that-
Slapping your wife (even once) is generally considered an act of domestic violence
Slapping a coworker (even once) would get you instantly fired.
Slapping a stranger (even once) is assault.
Slapping someone else's child (even once) could land you in prison.
Why is it that most of us refrain, for our entire lives, from doing any of the above and yet slapping your own kid is somehow seen as excusable?
The fact that that you feel it didn't affect you as an adult is neither here nor there. You could probably also have taken a line of coke as a teenager without suffering any effects as an adult. That doesn't make it right, healthy or ethical.
I suppose this letter will be regarded as 'hate' by Lamott's supporters, or that I'm confusing a slap with far more serious forms of child abuse.