Letters to the Editor
-
Figured as much
Not Agreed
I'm afraid I can't agree not to comment on anything which appears here -- it's a forum after all. I can promise you, though, that any comments of mine will be directed to the substance of the comment, and not to the person making it.
-- William Timberman
I was "afriad" of that too. We have been down this road before you and I. I was just hoping for a gentleman's agreement but I should have realized, from my months of reading this blog, that William Timberman will not suffer limitations on his ability to hold court. He believes that if he is condescending enough and tosses about his Vietnam era "dirty hippie" credentials, he will be perceived as the wise old sage that he believes himself to be. Well I take offense. I accuse you of "dirty hippie" heresy. Your credentials mean almost nothing to me as you are not even willing to acknowledge that we have a major set of problems on our hands, let alone actually take to the streets (peacefully or otherwise) in an attempt to solve those problems. I know this may be hard for you to accept given that your generation wants to be the one to say they have seen the worst of it but, sadly, our current situation is worse. Worse than Vietnam. Worse than Watergate. Worse than the situations of your day. Or perhaps they are not really worse but only that we now know more about the evils perpetrated against us and perpetrated in our name. Either way, we do know of them and they need to be dealt with. Your constant counseling of "stay the course because I know more about this than you" just isn't cutting it. Especially since staying our current course amounts to letting the criminals police themselves.
You say you address the substance of the argument and yet you have not yet addressed, in any other way than "look at the last election", my contention that we do not live in a democracy. When someone happens to point out the most obvious realities of our current situation you do not address those concerns and show that, by reasoning, they are unwarranted. Rather you choose to label those that point out these realities, "hysterical." I poke the obvious holes in your arguments regarding King, Gandhi, et al. and you do not blink. Tiptap and I quote Jefferson and you... what? You claim to know what Jefferson really meant? You have nothing. You have said nothing other than "you are gonna get hurt if you try to take on the man." Well thanks for the advice but I know the consequences. I used to be a part of the machine. I know what it is capable of.
If people, including yourself, do not want to take the direct action course, I would not label them "pussies" (your word not mine). I would simply say that we all have to live with the consequences of our actions or inaction (as the case may be).
All of that said - I am done with this. I honestly don't even know why I post to these blogs at all. To my mind they are filled with fiddlers and I suppose I hope against reason that people will wake up. I will leave the pages to the burgeoning pundits.
-
Good News
Michelle, I remember your post about the job. I'm very glad to hear that you managed to hang on to it after all.
Bullies, unfortunately, are everywhere, but then so are courageous folks like yourself. Conflicts are hard to handle, especially when we or our adversaries push emotional buttons which in many cases we don't even know that we have. The important thing is not to strike first, and to try not to leave the other party no way out of the conflict.
I wish that our present leaders understood this, and I dread the amount of struggle it will take to persuade them or their successors of their folly. In the end, though, we must do what needs to be done. Who else is there?
-
Have we?
Been down this road before, that is. I gather you were using a different handle at the time. Well, I don't suppose it makes any difference.
As for the rest, political action comes in many forms -- writing is one of them, and at the other end of the spectrum, so is armed insurrection, just as you say. As for the quality of our democracy, I'd agree that it's deteriorated appreciably since the Viet Nam era, but surely that deterioration is a product of all sorts of influences, many of which were well underway at the time, and almost none of which can be cured simply by throwing the present scoundrels out of office -- or shooting them, if you prefer.
So, which types of political action, if any, are likely to get us where we want to go? Are they mutually exclusive? You say that only force can do the trick. I think that in time, other forms of action are likely to be more fruitful. And yes, it is my experience which tells me this. Characterize it however you will, it's what I've got, and I have to say, so far what you've offered here doesn't seem qualified to supplant it, at least for me.
-
OT Sorry
WT: The important thing is not to strike first, and to try not to leave the other party no way out of the conflict.
Had I protested what happened to me, it would have risked the jobs of both my boss and the VP for HR at the university where I work. I chose not to do that. Purposefully. I will defend myself in a way that will not lose two older women their jobs. It's not the fight I'm up for.
Back on topic -- I'll say it again -- Glenn has made more progress in one week at Salon than I had ever imagined. Look at the letters link and see -- the only more commented upon article is CP -- and if you look at it (I haven't for two days) it's mostly negative while Glenn's postings keep getting on point, intelligent comments, until mine, that is :)