Letters to the Editor
-
to victoria L
the scarf is a small and very insignificant gesture to a much larger and more important outcome. i don't think pelosi has ever supported/advocated/endorsed the suppression of women or their status/role in society. but at stake right now is the establishment of peace in the middle east.
what would the alternative be? to go to syria and attack the syrian president? to insult and alienate her (or others' role) by not showing a minimal level of 'respect' for his beliefs would be truly counterproductive.
if you have children, i'm sure you've explained that sometimes it's better to tell a little white lie than to be blunt and 'honest' to avoid offending people for no reason. imagine that situation on a larger/global scale and you'll understand why pelosi might not have the liberty to be as 'honest' as you.
or thank god you're not our elected representative.
-
So Nancy and others step into the breach….
As many have pointed out, Pelosi’s trip is not without precedent. The controversy is certainly overblown and knee-jerk driven in the MSM by its hypocritical treatment of it, blatantly ignoring any mention of virtually concurrent visits by Republicans to the same country.
The real issue, as I see it, is the obvious absence of any productive or meaningful diplomatic initiatives by this administration in the Middle East (or elsewhere) towards real progress in the world.
If you haven’t been paying attention to the deterioration of the diplomatic credibility of this nation, under this administration, you need only to have seen the recent staged dialog between Condoleezza Rice and Bill O’Reilly on FauxSnooze to see how vapid and utterly lacking in anything beyond absurd notions of righteous hegemony the current State Department agenda is about. That pathetic discussion took place in an environment these imposters on the stage of world leadership consider as “friendly”. The reality of this is even more depressing when you recall the tremendous opportunity that was clearlly available to this administration immediately after 9/11. The waste inherent in the absolute failure to take advantage of that tragically historic moment has to be devastating to consider by any thoughtful American.
Does that make what Pelosi (and others) may be trying to do in the gaping void left by these morons appropriate?
I suspect no one actually knows the answer to that. The way this government is set up has always led to controversial and politically charged overlapping actions by the different branches in the formulation and conduct of foreign policy. Given that history, and the current state of U.S. diplomatic relations around the world, what additional harm can it do?
-
Victoria the Victorian
It's apparent that Victoria L., like enthusiasts of all stripes, is so convinced of her own self-righteousness, and so persuaded that her own religion--which, in her case, takes the form of a fierce irreligiousity--is the ONE, TRUE and ETERNAL TRUTH, that there is no airspace left for logical discussion.
But I can't resist pointing out how wildly she misconstrued my comment about "Enlightenment values" and how entirely she misunderstands the Enlightenment itself, which was about nothing at all if it wasn't about toleration of religious and political minorities. With Victoria L., it's her way or the highway. Her crass, tone-deaf inability to distinguish between a polite gesture (one entirely in keeping with the Speaker's own Roman Catholic faith, btw) and complicity with the subjugation of women speaks for itself.
And, no, I'm not one of those liberals who believes that all cultural practices all over the world are equally worthy of preservation and that a line shouldn't be drawn in the sand. But it's only the shrillest of cultural imperialists that can't recognize the difference between abject kowtowing and polite acknowledgement that maybe Islam--a faith to which about a third of humanity subscribes--might be worthy of being accorded a little respect.
-
I am shocked! Shocked, I say!
How can anyone be surprised by the leather-lunged outrage of the right at the sight of Nancy Pelosi in Syria?
The Bush Administration's sole "strategy" in dealing with domestic or international opposition to its nearly uniformly disastrous post-9/11 foreign policy has been to ridicule, denounce and question the patriotism of anyone with the temerity to disagree with it. Dick Cheney has locked horns with those famous radicals John McCain and Chuck Hagel, for crying out loud.
So what did we expect when the Democratic House Speaker of the city of San Francisco (almost a terrorist enclave in the view of the Republican Party, I'm sure) travels to Syria to meet with the head of state? Were we waiting for Bush to heave a sigh of relief and say, "Thanks, Nancy! I had been wanting to do that myself but just couldn't figure out how"?
No, we all knew that the tired rhetoric would begin. The best thing about it is it once again exposes the moral and intellectual exhaustion of this administration. If anyone thinks Pelosi and friends are backing down on this, he or she needs to hit the Wayback Button and dial up the good old days of "Mission Accomplished" 2003.
-
chemiazrit: Enlightenment or Romanticism?
“But I can't resist pointing out how wildly she misconstrued my comment about "Enlightenment values" and how entirely she misunderstands the Enlightenment itself, which was about nothing at all if it wasn't about toleration of religious and political minorities.”
You are simply fabricating a view of the Enlightenment to accommodate your beliefs, which in fact are much more in keeping with Romanticism. Only certain modern ‘liberals’ seeking to rationalize self-censorship and their patronizing use of minorities as political pawns (see the Mohammed Cartoons affair), have come to imagine the Enlightenment as some multicultural well-spring. The Enlightenment was founded on the supremacy of reason (hence the associated term The Age of Reason).
Any “tolerance’ advocated by Enlightenment philosophers would have been predicated on the minority not being a danger to the rights of others, and certainly would not have absolved them in any case from an unwavering critique of their views. Just see Voltaire’s comments on Jews and circumcision, or Kant arguing against homosexuality or the education of women. These are both interesting examples because they show in Kant’s case the failure to exercise reason outside of his prejudicial traditions and cultural context (Christian and German), and in Voltaire’s case offer a scathing commentary on tribalism and its machinations which is no less valid or applicable today (however uncomfortable his reasoning is to those who espouse ‘tolerance’).
“…and polite acknowledgement that maybe Islam--a faith to which about a third of humanity subscribes--might be worthy of being accorded a little respect.”
So might makes right? 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong? Your attitude is grossly disturbing. I don’t care how many Muslims there are; Islam must earn respect and when I read the Qur’an, study the life of Mohammed and examine the current state of Islamic societies I see a violent, divisive, exclusivist faith founded on utterly irrational claims. Why would I respect that?
p.s. I am not in any way against all religion only religions based on faith rather than reason. Asking questions of our spiritual purpose and seeking to find answers based in objective evidence is probably the most important and noble things humans can do.