THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.
*1* I WOULD LIKE to draw attention to a number of distortions and inaccuracies in Paul Mirengoff's essay, Argument By Metaphor.
Mr. Mirengoff uses an op-ed I wrote in the Christian Science Monitor, Lessons from the Killing Fields of Cambodia--30 Years On as a platform to launch a diatribe against "the left," arguing that my op-ed illustrates how "the left" lacks "substantive heft, but [is] not short on figures of speech." This title is ironic, given that, in the Power Line Blog that served as a basis for his essay in The Daily Standard, Mr. Mirengoff described me using a disease metaphor: his blog was entitled A Very Sick Professor. Evidently, Mr. Mirengoff believes that it is fine to use this type of fatuous "argument by metaphor," one that is commonly found in the ideological rhetoric of hate groups.
Mr. Mirengoff's journalism of assertion involves the use of a decontextualized series of quotations to manufacture an argument--in doing so he distorts what I originally said. His first paragraph is typical. He asserts that I am warning that "our government's prosecution of the war on terror may be causing us to resemble the Khmer Rouge" and that "The chief lesson, according to Hinton, is that we risk heading down 'their path to evil' through our conduct 'right now in the war on terror.'" Anyone who reads my original op-ed will see that this summary misrepresents my argument.
My op-ed, published to mark the 30th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge's rise to power, was intended as a reflection on what lessons we might take away--both as individuals and as citizens--from this historical period of war and terror since we, too, are now living in a time of war and terror. This is not a "bizarre analogy," but an attempt to learn from history. One can study genocide and still take away lessons that are useful to understand ourselves and the world in which we live--even if genocide is not taking place. Nowhere do I say that the United States is now engaging in or about to perpetrate genocide. Nevertheless, there are some important resonances between the two historical periods that warrant our consideration as individuals and citizens.
I discuss four of these resonances: the risks of an overzealous sense of certainty that can lead to intolerance and fanaticism, the dangers of political paranoia that can lead to the abuse of the rights of others, the use of torture, which typically yields unreliable information and leads us to abuse both the rights of other human beings and our fundamental values, and the increased prevalence of certain social/psychological processes that facilitate the harm of others. Nowhere do I say there is a "chief lesson," as Mr. Mirengoff contends. Instead, I argue that by learning about the past we may come to better understand ourselves and the world in which we live. My piece concludes that "such understanding can help us become more self-aware, humble, tolerant, and let's hope, willing to act in the face of evil." Most people I know--both conservatives and liberals alike--would consider this a laudable goal.
Mr. Mirengoff conjures up the bizarre assertion that I "think we are coming to resemble the Cambodian mass murderers" because we "are not always politically correct." As proof, he quotes from a subsection of my op-ed where I note that, by studying perpetrators, we "catch reflections of ourselves. Most of us have, at some point, used stereotypes and euphemisms, displaced responsibility, followed instructions better questioned, succumbed to peer pressure, disparaged others, become desensitized to the suffering of others, and turned a blind eye to what our government should not be doing. These sort of things are going on right now in the war on terror."
Yes, I believe that these things are happening in the war on terror--just as they are operative in our everyday interactions with other people. (In fact, Mr. Mirengoff's use of a disease metaphor and disparaging comments about me provide an example of what I'm talking about.) No, this doesn't mean we have become genocidaires. To reiterate, we "catch reflections" of ourselves in the past and try to learn from them. Apparently, Mr. Mirengoff believes that critiquing desensitization and the dehumanizing use of stereotypes and euphemisms is a bad thing--an assertion of "political correctness" to quote another fatuous phrase Mr. Mirengoff deploys.
--Alex Hinton
*2* I READ CYNTHIA Grenier's article with great interest, as I know a graduate from Annapolis and spent a weekend, when I was in the 11th grade, staying on campus with the midshipmen. It was in 1984, when the incident with the female midshipman mentioned in the article was fresh on everyone's mind. On that score, I agree she should not have been granted a waiver.
However, on almost every other point, I have to disagree. I think, provided they meet the same standards and requirements, that women should be fully integrated into the armed forces--including combat roles. Other militaries have demonstrated that integration is not detrimental. Further, while the host could have been more polite, I do not think it at all inappropriate that accommodations for Muslims are in the planning stages. If the Academy does not want to accommodate them, it should suspend all religious accommodations. Besides, demonstrating an acceptance of Muslims, particularly in today's climate, would go a long way toward showing that the freedom and appreciation of diversity so loudly proclaimed by the United States is more than mere rhetoric. Perhaps "Mad Jack" wouldn't approve, but then again, we don't live in the 19th century anymore.
--Paul D'Amboise
*3* HOW SAD AND painfully true are Cynthia Grenier's words. If the inexorable creep of society's niceties into our service academies cannot be halted in wartime, what hope do we have of restoring the warrior spirit to the hallowed halls of United States Naval Academy? I'm sure a few hardened USNA Marine Lieutenants in Fallujah would have some choice comments about Friday Moslem services and the political correctness they represent. Now is not the time to turn our military institutions into social petri dishes. Our young men need to learn how to fight and win wars, not to be empathetic on the model of Oprah or Dr. Phil. The academies set themselves up for this sort of nonsense not by admitting women, but by allowing their male graduates places in non-combat arms branches. The service academies should be the crucibles for combat officers, not a training ground for those not wishing to hear shots fired in anger.
--Conan Ward
*4* "MAD JACK" WOULD not be successful in today's military, let alone tomorrow's, so why do some people insist that we should train to be like him? Wake up, the world is changing, and an ardent desire to return to "the good old days" won't accomplish anything for anyone. I applaud the Superintendent's level-headed response in the face of such antagonism.
--Titus Fortner, USNA '98
*5* WITH REGARD TO William Kristol's Daily Standard piece on the Newsweek fiasco, why doesn't someone ask this question: "Even if it were true, should this have been published?" I would like to see a discussion of the loss of media judgment--at one time, some things, true or not, simply were not published because they were regarded as "beyond the pale." There are any number of ways this story (if proven true) could have been handled without setting off a firestorm. For example, sit on the story until after the war is over, then publish it as a part of the history of the war. Or discuss it with government officials to elicit a change in procedures and guidelines, but don't print it until later. I long for journalists who see themselves as Americans first and journalists second--and human beings before all else. Self-imposed restraint is not censorship. My heart goes out to the innocent victims of the violence triggered by this story. The fact that the story is false only makes it worse.
--Paul Hamilton
*6* IS JONATHAN V. LAST referring to the original Planet of the Apes or the Burton remake? The remake is in a class with Tomb Raider, the first, with the "damn dirty ape," Heston, and the Statue of Liberty is iconic and still great fun. Otherwise, I agree with Last. The sooner the Star Wars prequels are forgotten, the better.
--Dean Anderson
*7* JONATHAN V. LAST writes that "Qui-Gon Jinn, a well-meaning Jedi master, finds a boy whom he believes will fulfill a prophecy to save the galaxy. He is, of course, wrong: Anakin Skywalker is fated to bring death and doom."
Actually, Qui-Gon is right. Anakin (as Darth Vader) does save the galaxy when he rescues Luke and finally kills the Emperor, Darth Sidious. He brings balance to the Force exactly as was foretold and, by begetting Luke and Leia, restores and renews both the Republic and the Order of Jedi Knights. The two institutions should be reborn stronger and better than they were, having learned the dangers of decadence. None of this would have been possible without Anakin's fall and subsequent redemption.
The Star Wars oracle appears to partake in the sick sense of humor often shown by the one at Delphi. But that doesn't make either of them wrong.
--Joseph DeMartino
*8* DAVID SKINNER WRITES an interesting article about The Job. I never watched it and I have a hard time watching Rescue Me. Maybe it's too gritty for me at this point.
But good sitcoms, and even some mediocre ones, have always dealt with the passage of time and the comic and tragic events that go along with it. All in the Family had births, deaths, weddings, funerals, and dealt with the flaws (including infidelity) of its characters every week. So did the Mary Tyler Moore show, The Dick Van Dyke Show, and even the recently retired Everybody Loves Raymond. Even Married with Children did this and managed to find a comic way to deal with a real life tragedy for one of the cast members.
There does need to be some constant. And maybe the best way to do it is the way they did in Cheers. As Sam Malone said to Norm at the end of the last episode, he couldn't leave Cheers for Diane. Cheers had been the one constant in his life and so he had to remain true to her.
So maybe all "The Job" really needed was to find its Cheers. And maybe, given time, it would have.
--Aaron Frank
*9* I THINK IN order for Stephen Schwartz's article to be fair to the Balts, he should have reminded his audience that all of these nations are ethnocracies--not democracies. They pride themselves on their collaboration with Hitler, they build monuments to the Waffen SS, they deprived half of their populations of citizenship, and, during WWII, their governments massacred hundreds of thousands of Poles, Belorussians, and Jews all in the name of 'independence'. Of course they are unhappy that the Soviets won; there was still unfinished Jewry around! I think Schwartz ought to tone down the 'national oppression' theme. It is precisely by starting with ethnic identity that one arrives at a right to self-determination and ends with ethnic cleansing.
--Anatoly Ostrovsky
*10* AS ALWAYS, ANOTHER good article from Irwin M. Stelzer. I just wanted to say that I disagree with his statement regarding Americans' views on immigration. I think as more and more Americans are informed of the problems that illegal immigration is causing, attitudes are changing. Yes, Mexican immigrants take jobs that most American's don't want, but the price we pay in the long run for looking the other way on illegal immigration is just now starting to surface (i.e., bankrupt state healthcare systems). I don't want to dwell on one sentence from an otherwise interesting article, but I just wanted to make that point. Immigration and its hidden costs would be an excellent topic for a future Stelzer article, I think--certainly one which I would look forward to reading. --Matt Karls