Letters to the Editor
-
It's just so tedious is all
To hear an endless chorus of people screaming about the evil that is everything and anything American since time was. I'm often accused, wrongfully I think, of drawing black and white comparisons but often all I see here is a blanket blind blockheaded thoughtless equivalence that states almost axiomatically that everything is the same thing. America=Iran (or whoever), if 'they' execute 100,000 people then we're just as bad because we have the Death Sentence too. If a bunch of paramilitary Sunnis truckbomb a market and kill 200 people then who are we to criticize if we have Eric Rudolph? It's patently stupid and dull. Yes we here, and in the west generally are far from perfect. That is because we are human beings and not angels. But to state that a parking ticket is the same thing as a concentration camp I think makes everyone look like an idiot. The problem with taking the moral position of absolute perfection, of Utopia or Hell takes all these people out of the interesting work of making meaningful decisions. It's an unassailable platitude to say that wrong is wrong and bad is bad. Ok, so it is. Then what? Do they really believe that the fact that yesterday my state passed its first death sentence in 6 years (North Carolina) is absolutely the same thing as stoning people to death without trial for the crime of adultery? Do they really? Is that what they really believe? Because if we truly rely on such insane absolutes I can tell you where I've seen that before, where it ends. It ends with things like Reign of Terror, Pol Pot and the Inquisition. It always does.
-
Challenging the Status Quo
I think it's great that Camille Paglia continues to arouse such passion in Salon's readers. It's simply stunning how closed-minded most of the respondants are. Paglia voices an opinion outside the liberal norm or engages in intelligent debate with conservatives and the immediate response is "off with her head!" Do any of you really think that Paglia is in danger of being dismissed by the editors of Salon given that her columns consistantly receive more reader responses than just about any other columnist? If you really want Paglia gone, you need to realize that that decision is not based on whether readers love or hate her, but by the number of hits and responses to her column. Paglia is one of the few voices in the liberal media who actually listen to the opposition and craft intelligent and well-thought responses based on the logic of her personal philosophy. She does not underestimate her adversaries or reduce them to shallow stereotypes. I think many Salon readers are afraid of Paglia because she challenges their preconcieved notions rather than pandering to them.
-
Is the James Randall lettter a fake?
Come on. It's almost a spoonfed version of Republican talking points. Political discourse on the most simplistic level. I'm not even sure one could get through to this sheep.
'60-plus-year ideological struggle we call "the war on terror."' - They are tired of an occupying force. They aren't jealous, hateful of freedom, etc. They are humiliated and want us out.
'Did you not understand or believe President Bush in his address to the nation on Sept. 20, 2001" - we support numerous terror-related nations & dictatorships, to this very day. You need a deeper understanding of the world - and terrorist threat.
'I...still think Bush & Cheney ...are not adulterers and liars'- not adulterers, but the lies are documented. Still stunned that 5 years later - with all the double-speak & public pronouncements that counter their own classified intelligence, that Republicans say they're honest. It's documented - open your eyes. Cheney, unlike any other public servant in the past 50 years, has his own, unsubstantiated version of just about everything.
Bush is a political lightweight, who even according to his supporters, didn't understand the world at large. Here we are...
'I do not believe foreign policy under Bush has created more terrorists.' - our most recent NIE said it has! Unreal...
What Mr. RANDALL doesn't understand is, this isn't Republican vs. Democrat. Right-of center politicians, to ex-generals, to military strategists have put their necks on the line to declare the obvious: Iraq is not moving forward. We're mired in a civil war and there's almost no better scenario than the present one. Why delay the inevitable?
In the meantime, more American lives are lost on a daily basis.
I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye Mr. Randall, but do yourself a favor - read, and think for yourself.
-
If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good? Yes!!
In your article on "If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?" you asked several questions. I take issue with all of your questions on one level or another, but one in particular caught my eye. You asked "why should our own self interest take priority over that of all others?". My answer is, 1) We have a right to self preservation. They (the terrorists)mounted an unprovoked attack against us on 9/11. We have the right and I would say the responsibility to defend ourselves, our interests and our people throughout the world. I know what you're thinking. There goes the "9/11 mantra again!" I say yes, there it is again, because liberals and democrats seem to have forgotten what happened on that day and seem to have forgotten why we need to fight terorism pro-actively wherever we find it. If you must be reminded, so be it!! 2)We are not responsible for other people groups and nations. We are responsible for ourselves. For our leaders to take the needs of other nations over our own would be traitorous and irresponsible.
Further, for you to even ask that question shows a dangerous attitude to the freedom and independence of our nation and countrymen. I recognize that you have the right to ask such questions and I don't advocate blindly following someone (even President Bush). However, I feel that when you ask that question you are showing (even though you proclaim your love of America in the article) that you have no sense of nationalism and patriotism! I know what I just said is a strong statement, but it is truly how I feel. I am not saying that we should seek to hurt, denegrate, embarrass or not be allies with other nations, unless those nations are first seeking our harm and/or somehow supporting terrorism. However, as a proud American I do feel it is right and expected to seek our good first, both at home and abroad. This is why our self-interest should take priority over that of all others. This is not, as you put it, "hubris... excessive pride". This is our right as a people and a nation.
I would also argue that we are not seeking to be the "arbiter of morality". But any fool who looks at the geopolitical situation today knows that where America is concerned, other nations either love us or hate us. One could also say it this way, "If you (other nations) are not with us, then you are against us". In my opinion, the statements and arguments you make in this article reveal a shockingly blind and self-deceiving reading of geopolitics and indeed of life itself. If America is to survive the liberal onslaught that we are facing, then conservatives better get out and vote their conscience and the Republican leadership in Washington had better get some backbone and stand up to the Democrats and stop trying to make "nicey nice" with them. I have said what I feel. It might make people angry, but I am tired of being afraid of making people angry.