Cynthia Cotts and Dan Kennedy
Dear Cynthia--
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponI think we agree on this much regarding the Elián González affair: The Miami relatives are manipulative media hounds, and Elián is far better off now that he has been reunited with his father. It's appalling, though, that most commentators who agree with those propositions seem to think that they must therefore support Janet Reno's high-risk commando raid. Typical is Eric Alterman, who wrote on MSNBC.com that "there was no pretty or entirely peaceful way to enforce the law in a situation like this one. Sorry if the pictures didn't turn out perfectly; the operation sure did." But make no mistake: Reno was very, very lucky at the way it all turned out. The reason Marisleysis Gonzalez was able to shed another bucket of tears at her ridiculous news conference was that neither she, Elián, nor anyone else had been accidentally killed or wounded by Reno's raiders--an absolutely plausible scenario that fortunately did not occur.
Thank you for directing my attention to the Wall Street Journal. The editorial and Peggy Noonan's commentary are not the only bits of loopiness on today's opinion pages. There is also a contribution from Melanie Kirkpatrick defending the Boy Scouts of America's ban on gay scouts and adult leaders, which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. I was drawn to Kirkpatrick's screed for reasons both personal (I was an Eagle scout and am now the assistant leader of my 9-year-old son's Cub Scout den) and rhetorical (Kirkpatrick commits an error of logic in her second paragraph from which she never recovers).
I've written previously about my ambivalence toward scouting, both because of its stand against homosexuality and its requirement that scouts be religious believers. What really gets me about Kirkpatrick's screed, though, is her statement that the Supreme Court case "is about every American's First Amendment freedom of association." Now, I consider myself to be a 99 44/100 percent pure civil-libertarian. I even supported the right of a veterans group in South Boston several years ago to exclude a gay-and-lesbian organization from its St. Patrick's Day parade. But in order to assert a freedom-of-association argument on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America, you first have to show that there is agreement among its members. The BSA can't do that, because no one has ever been asked. I'll bet if parents were surveyed, a majority would support the inclusion of gay scouts. The matter of gay adult leaders is a bit trickier, but I doubt there would be overwhelming opposition. But regardless of how such a survey might come out, my point is that the BSA's anti-gay policy is something simply handed down from headquarters in Irving, Texas.
Families get their kids involved in scouting because it's fun and because they hope it will teach them values such as self-reliance and teamwork--not homophobia. Kirkpatrick notes that 65 percent of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs are sponsored by religious organizations. She fails to mention that among these organizations are Unitarian Universalist churches, which have so vehemently opposed scouting's anti-gay policy that the BSA has suspended the Unitarian Universalist religious award to Boy Scouts.
On a brighter note, James Cramer is in total meltdown, isn't he? The psychotic market not only has him raving even more incoherently than usual on TheStreet.com, but the current New York magazine and the New Republic both feature end-of-the-world Cramer diatribes. Maybe Janet Reno had better send in commandos to rescue Cramer's co-workers. There could be children involved, you know.
Until tomorrow,
Dan
The Least Fun Thing About Video Games: Friendly Fire
Why Is It Such a Big Deal That We Found Water on the Moon?
My Czech Vacation Made Me Kinda Sad
Help! I Got My Co-Worker's Sister Pregnant!
The Obama Administration Is Giving This Gitmo Detainee a Raw Deal
Another Book From Philip Roth About How Much It Stinks To Get Old
Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
All wars are horrible, but they are also each individually different. The situation in Colombia is different from Cambodia and also from Vietnam [Thursday's entry]. You would have more chance of convincing me that intervention in Colombia is wrong (I am 3/4 of the way there already so it's worth your time) if you actually have a reason based upon the situation in Colombia, not a facile, over-used and cheapened parallel.
And, never make the mistake of thinking that just because you were "brave" enough to burn a useless draft card while under the influence of pot, and the other one of you was insulated from ever being called to service by your gender, you have any moral superiority over the millions who, in the U.S., in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam answered the call of their countries and laid down their lives, by choice, by necessity or by sheer love for their patrimony.
Your exchange seems to put your actions and opinions on some pedestal of superior morality. You both seemed to distrust and look down upon the U.S. military. What have you done in your adult lives, as you shuttle around the East Side, dine at Nobu and read all the papers, to actually stop genocide, promote peace, distribute food to famine victims, rescue flood victims, prevent cholera, alleviate some increment of suffering at home or abroad?
You come walk in my boots with me, you come to Kosovo, not just on a breezy 3-day VIP tour, but you really come and do some good, then you can write about what you think about war and who are war criminals and who aren't. Go sit in on the tribunals in The Hague. You come look a real war criminal in the eyes, and then you can talk about Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton. Then you will know the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating when you toss those terms around.
I regret I cannot sign with my rank and name, but I have given up certain of my freedoms in order to serve. Would you? Am I somehow less than you, morally, intellectually, or spiritually, because I have? I don't think so. I volunteered for the Balkans because it is the right thing to do. I try every day to put my money where my mouth is and to live by my ideals. Can you say the same? And, by the way, I am a woman. Men do not have a monopoly on the army, honor, or service to the country.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
As an oncologist I can assure you that if, indeed, Rudy Giuliani's cancer was discovered by routine PSA testing in an early stage [Thursday], prostate cancer is usually curable with surgery or radiation therapy. The patient is incapacitated for several weeks at the most. (Of course, the medical "truth" in these cases is not often shared with the press.)
I see no reason why he can't run. Remember that Dole ran for president with a history of prostate cancer. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Bill Bradley's atrial fibrillation gave many voters pause in buying his image of an in-shape kinda guy.
--S.R.Lemkin, MD
(To reply, click here.)
There are certainly legitimate arguments to be made against the seizure of Elian from the household of Lazaro Gonzalez, but Kennedy doesn't make them [Tuesday's entry]. Instead, he salutes those who think his way, insults those who don't, and throws around inaccurate terminology about the events themselves. And that's only one paragraph.
--Howard Litwak
(To reply, click here.)
Now that Elian is with his father, the Miami relatives look like a particularly loathsome bunch of opportunists who are refusing to accept their own irrelevance. Their continued struggle reminds me of that old Simpsons episode where the quack lawyer comes out and says, "Your honor, I would like to cite the case of Finders versus Keepers."
Meanwhile: Has anyone noticed that the names of everyone in the Elian saga sound oddly fictionalized, as if they were all in a particularly bad symbolic novel? Donato Dalrymple (why didn't Agatha Christie think of that?), Elian, Marisleysis--and this is the kicker--the uncle that presumably "revived" Elian is named Lazaro. The whole thing sounds like a metadrama where the characters suddenly step off the stage and become real people. I bet Dickens is turning over in his grave right now.
--Dola
(To reply, click here.)
How high do you think the approval ratings for Clinton and Reno will rise after the latest GOP witchhunt? During Monica-gate, Clinton's approval rating went to something like 70 percent. Now in these latest hearings, after the sanctimonious Connie Mack or Arlen Specter tear into Janet Reno, who will be sitting there calmly, her arm shaking from MS, and then telling these hypocritical morons that the Miami family had no legal right to hold the child when his father was in the country wanting him back, explaining that law enforcement officers sometimes, gasp, carry guns, and break down doors in a hostile situation--well, I think it will go over 70 percent. As a Democrat, I say, "Thank you GOP for your continuing tin ear and disregard for the wishes of the American public."
--J. B. Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
I suggest the writers and the readers try to refrain from talking about Elian and discuss something else--maybe the two Koreas, maybe the National Zoo shooting, the 20% fall of the Euro since its inception, or the crisis in Zimbabwe--will it affect your vacation plans this summer? More coverage of the topic, on either side, is just making it worse.
--L
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Political campaigning and young people, Wednesday's entry. My students have heard the message of the Democrats and Republicans loud and clear. The Democrats say the Republicans are crooks. The Republicans say the Democrats are crooks. My students believe both of these messages implicitly, and ask the very reasonable question, "Why should I vote when all politicians are crooks?" It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If only one party goes for negative campaigning, they win. If both parties go for negative campaigning, democracy goes down the tubes. But Al Gore and George W. Bush need to wake up and realize that among people 35 and younger, by far the most respected politician in the country is Jessie Ventura. How does it feel to be viewed as less honest than a professional wrestler?
--Rick Norwood
(To reply, click here.)
(4/28)
Re: Jim Cramer, Monday's entry. "Incoherent raving"? "End-of-the-world diatribes"? I don't know what articles you read (if you did), but it couldn't have been the two you cited in your rather gratuitous swipe at Cramer. These articles don't say anything different from what he has consistently said for the past 2 years. He has provided an excellent view of what he sees as a day-to-day trader, and I have found his information to be accurate and valuable. Yes, he is opinionated, and can be downright obnoxious at times, but on the several occasions when I have exchanged email with him (yes, he does answer his email!) he has never told me anything but the unvarnished truth.
--Sid Wade
(To reply, click here.)
[Dan Kennedy clarified his remarks in Wednesday's entry.]
(4/25)