By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
By Roy Edroso
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
By Zachary D. Roberts
Would the Wall Streeters and Madison Avenue types be as quick to send their own to pest holes? When Frankenstein created his monster, didn't he become afraid of what he had spawned?
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Fahim, Annan, and Carter
Re Kareem Fahim's obituary of Yasir Arafat [November 1723]: Arafat's greatest sin was his duplicity of statements: one of peace given to the always gullible American left and Europeans, who wanted to think he was the next Gandhi or Mandela; the other of war and revolution, urging the Palestinians to dedicate their lives to a cause that was pushed further and further from reality by the very violence that he preached.
Fahim has joined Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, and others who attempt to whitewash Arafat's sins and leave the world with the impression that he was merely a failure. This begs the question: When Ariel Sharon dies, will people similarly attempt to mask his sins?
Up for debate
Why can't she just debate the issue instead of attacking those with different views? Christian-bashing does not prove any part of her argument against restricting abortion and is unseemly in a classy paper like the Voice. Arlen Specter was quoted saying he would leada filibuster against any pro-life judicial nominees; with such a litmus test, he could not give a fair hearing to potential candidates. Would Lerner protest if someone who has promised that no pro-abortion candidates would ever get past him chaired this committee?
Sharon Lerner replies: Arlen Specter never said he would "lead a filibuster against any pro-life judicial nominees," nor has he said he wouldn't let anti-abortion candidates get past him, as you imply. As I point out in my article, he has said the oppositethat he would not base his decisions on a nominee's stance on the issueand he voted to confirm the appointments of Supreme Court justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquistall of whom oppose the right to abortion.
Owing Mills, Maryland
Our literary editor replies: Rest assured, Siobhanit's Drabble's gaze that greets yours.
Balk of ages
Re Anya Kamenetz's "On the Move" [November 1016]: So the 18- to 29-year-old age group favored Kerry over Bush, 54 percent to 44 percent. What about those in that 44 percent? Are they stupid? Ignorant? Unenlightened? I suspect they watch the same TV shows, listen to the same music.
It makes me think that progressive young Democrats just don't have real jobs or families yet. If you asked people over the age of 40 when they made their worst choices, they would say in their teens or early twenties.
Democrats just need to grow up.
The crying game
Re "Voices From the Wreckage" [November 1016]:
God bless Sarah Goodyear. While the election didn't bring tears to my eyes, her piece sure did: true passion and an expression of strength, not fear and whimpering. Maybe progressives really can regroup and win this fucking battle!
Againwith the F-word!
Thanks to Goodyear for a beautiful and inspirational bit of prose this week. I am ready to get up, dust off, and stand tall. Fuck these guys and their supposed hegemony. See you at the inauguration.
A tear in the fabric
I want to thank Laura Conaway for her thoughtful article on the politics of gay marriage ["Queering the Election," November 1016], but must respectfully disagree with her conclusion. If one thinks that the Bush administration is just another bunch of Republicans, Conaway's no-compromise stance makes sense.
If they are, as I fear, a more radical threat to the fabric of American democracy, it does not. In addition, we should remember that the greatest victories of the civil rights movement were won by those like Dr. King, who captured the moral imagination of the American majority by relating the plight of African Americans to deeply felt American values. More radical civil rights activists often decried King's compromises. We need visionary compromisers, not just visionaries or compromisers, to win our country back.
Don't blame Ralph
I am in complete agreement with Laura Conaway. The attitudes of those states that have banned civil unions and gay marriages are constitutionally irrelevant and firm opposition to them is necessary. However, I'm disappointed to hear blame placed on independents like Nader for "throwing" the 2000 election. This assumes that the Naderites and other independents would have voted Democratic had Nader not run. I assume that the majority of people who vote outside the Republican and Democratic parties do so because, like myself, they are voting for the candidate they truly support and want to see in office. In this election, many of the reasons I heard to vote for Kerry were cast in a negative "So Bush doesn't win" form rather than "Because I agree with Kerry's arguments" or some other positive comment. I did not vote for Kerry or Bush because I don't share the values of either man. My vote cannot be considered a vote stolen from the Democrats because I do not support the politics of either party. It is disturbing to hear nonparty voters labeled "quixotic" and "immoral" when they are merely exercising their rights and upholding their valuesa position familiar to gay marriage advocates. If we continue to give our votes to a two-party system that doesn't support our values, we may not have any other option.