Letters Letters
Magic Bullets, Dangerous Shields Katha Pollitt’s clarion essay [“Magic-Bullet Birth Control,” June 8] is a stark indictment of male politicians who want to make pregnancy irreversi…
Jun 18, 2015 / Our Readers
Letters Letters
Arendt in dark times; literature in ones and zeros; the PEN Badge of courage; that’s the ticket…
Jun 2, 2015 / Our Readers
Letters Letters
Hidden in the stacks; wounds of war; heavy weather…
May 27, 2015 / Our Readers and Eric Alterman
Letters Letters
The 9-to-5 dream; the root of all good and evil; praise for a poet of fact…
May 19, 2015 / Our Readers
Letters Letters
No Nukes Are Good Nukes Michael T. Klare wants to support the agreement between the US government and the Iranian state [“For the Iran Nuke Deal,” May 4]. I am against Iran having nuclear bombs or nuclear-energy plants, because I am against any government having nuclear bombs or nuclear-energy plants. But who is the United States—armed to the eyebrows with nuclear weaponry and allied with the only nuclear state in the region—to tell Iran what to do? Suppose the Iranians demanded that the US dismantle its nuclear bombs, close down its nuclear-energy plants, withdraw from its approximately 135 overseas military bases, and cut off all aid to Israel? Suppose they then organized an international boycott of US trade, especially of petroleum, to enforce their demands. Would not US politicians and pundits cry bloody murder, denouncing this as an act of aggression against US sovereignty? It is shameful that the US debate should be limited to the “bomb Iran” crowd and the “bully Iran” crowd. The Nation should have a broader view. Wayne Price the bronx, ny Michael T. Klare Replies I agree with Wayne Price that the universal elimination of nuclear weapons should be our ultimate goal. The pact with Iran is not about the United States telling Iran what to do, but rather ensuring that it abides by its legal obligation, as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to refrain from the manufacture of nuclear weapons. If that can be accomplished in a peaceful manner, we all benefit. Michael T. Klare northampton, mass. In Defense of Incivility Thank you for Joan W. Scott’s article “The New Thought Police” [May 4]. It raises important but very subtle and tricky issues. On the one hand, I think it is incumbent upon all of us in academe to do our best not to be jerks through the kind of gratuitous incivility that helps to stereotype academicians as entitled, socially challenged brats. On the other hand, our dialogue does not have to be devoid of human emotion and passion. Honest disagreements sometimes go through stages of incivility—with harsh, even angry words exchanged—on the path toward healthier engagement. On an institutional level, civility codes can be used to silence or even bully dissenters. When one disagrees with the mainstream view, or a position imposed from on high, it can arouse passion, and sometimes emotions flare. As this piece suggests, university civility codes can easily be turned against people who are criticizing and protesting injustice, wrongful behavior, and bad decisions. Universities that impose civility codes are usually those that cannot manage by thoughtful, inclusive, quality leadership. Instead, they must mandate manners and punish those who venture beyond superficial politeness. David Yamada In “The New Thought Police,” Scott mentions the case of Leo Koch, a biology professor at the University of Illinois who lost his job for suggesting in the student newspaper that there should be “greater freedom in the conduct of sexual relations.” I knew Koch back in 1963. His letters published in the student newspaper did not result in a ruckus as long as they were simply signed “Leo Koch.” The ruckus started only when the editors violated Koch’s trust by identifying him as a faculty member. Edd Doerr silver spring, md. Did We Learn From Vietnam? George Black’s article for The Nation on the legacy of the Vietnam War [March 16] and Jon Wiener’s article on the 50th-anniversary commemoration of the Vietnam Peace Movement in Washington, DC [May 4], are commendable. But one would expect some commentary on the US wars since Vietnam—Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, etc.—to say nothing of Obama’s drone wars. We seem not to have learned anything from Vietnam, since we’re repeating earlier mistakes in the name of national security—unfortunately, this time without a critical peace movement. Laura Nader berkeley, calif. Stormy Weather, Redux Eric Alterman is a journalist, but certainly not a historian [“Days of Crazy,” May 4]. As a member of that profession, I am obliged to tell him that contempt is not a tool in the writing of history. Yet that is what emerges from his remarks about the Weathermen and similar movements of the 1960s and ’70s. His retroactive use of categories like “fanatics” and “terrorists,” very much in the public mind in 2015, does nothing to increase our understanding of those times, but does show how a self-described “liberal” likes to conflate the left and the right, the better to promote his own version of the “center” as the only form of viable politics today. As a young faculty member at Columbia during the events of 1968, I knew many of those among the students who later turned to violence. Granted, their analyses were wrongheaded and their actions counter-productive, but they were not contemptible. As Alterman himself says, one cannot understand their motivations without reference to the Vietnam War and the general politics of the time. Finally, Alterman misleads us and obscures the reality of the period by labeling all the groups he mentions—notably the Black Panthers—idiots and murderers, so as to consign them to the dustbin of history. I can also tell him that the lawlessness of the Nixon administration and the FBI was not a reaction to the violence he indicts: The government had long been using illegal methods of surveillance and disruption of left-wing activity. Indeed, the knowledge that this was so may well have been one of the reasons for the next generation’s turn to violence. Jeffry Kaplow paris Eric Alterman Replies Actually, Eric Alterman is a historian, and has PhD parchment from Stanford University to prove it. The rest of Jeffry Kaplow’s silly missive is similarly fact-challenged and sloppily argued. It would take at least another column to refute all of it, but I would simply point out—again, purely as a factual matter—that nowhere in my column did I call “all the groups…mention[ed]— notably the Black Panthers—idiots and murderers, so as to consign them to the dustbin of history.” (Indeed, I hardly think of history as a “dustbin.” Does Mr. Kaplow?) If his is the best case that can be made for the actions of the actual idiots and murderers I discussed in my column, then it is a sorry one indeed. Eric Alterman brooklyn, ny
May 12, 2015 / Our Readers, Michael T. Klare, and Eric Alterman
Letters Letters
Stormy Weather I am writing in response to Eric Alterman’s column “Days of Crazy” [May 4]. I was a youthful member/advocate of the Students for a Democratic Society during that period, from 1969 to 1971. I was never a part and never a supporter of the Weatherman faction of SDS. In fact, I argued against tactics that could cause human harm. The split that created Weatherman was largely about the appropriateness of violence and the acceptability of collateral damage (harm to humans) from actions against the war machine. But let us look back. US interference in Vietnam goes back to Eisenhower’s blocking free elections in 1958 because it was clear that Ho Chi Minh would win. This was followed by an ever-escalating war by the US government against the Vietnamese people. More than a decade later, Johnson had expanded the war, and Nixon was bombing Cambodia. We had been marching to get the United States out of Vietnam for years. If the purpose was to end the war, chanting “Bring the troops home” was not working. “Bring the war home” changed the picture. The idea that a few casualties here might spare thousands in Vietnam was compelling. Young Americans came to the view that, if we had to have a war, we might as well have it here. This helped scare the country to its senses. It changed the conversation. The actions of the Weathermen that the author describes as “idiotic” helped to bring the war on Vietnam to an end. Jonathan Spero grants pass, ore. Eric Alterman Replies In the words of that immortal moral philosopher Ricky Ricardo, “I don thin so…” Eric Alterman brooklyn, ny Dose of Reality In her article “The Truth About the Measles” [March 23/30], Annie Sparrow declares that “the vaccine is safe.” This is not true. People suffer complications from vaccines quite often, and the US government has a program called VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) that has collected nearly 500,000 cases. There is also a federal vaccine-injury compensation program that has paid out $3 billion. It’s true that some people have been using VAERS data inappropriately, claiming that the measles vaccine has caused hundreds of deaths. Yes, VAERS records do show over 300 reports of death following receipt of measles-containing shots. But the truth is more complicated. First, the measles vaccine is almost always administered with the vaccines for mumps and rubella; second, this MMR vaccine is often given along with many other childhood vaccinations during the same office visit. So it is impossible to state which shot or combination of shots caused a death. Also, VAERS does not have enough data to make conclusive scientific pronouncements about cause and effect. VAERS is merely an “indicator” of vaccine-injury trends that public-health officials and researchers can then explore in more detail. Nevertheless, people do die or are seriously injured after getting measles vaccines. In fact, the US Supreme Court has stated that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” That is one reason why Congress gave vaccine manufacturers indemnification from lawsuits. The United States is experiencing a form of mass hysteria that calls for forced vaccination, when there should continue to be legal options for controlling what drugs we use. Parents, especially Nation readers, should be concerned about losing the right to make informed vaccination decisions, especially if their children have already had serious reactions. Steven Rubin, PhD portola valley, calif. Annie Sparrow Replies As Steven Rubin concedes, passive-surveillance programs like VAERS demonstrate only that two events coincide—a vaccination and an “adverse event”—not that the one caused the other. By contrast, decades of active surveillance and rigorous follow-up provide overwhelming evidence that the measles vaccine, whether alone or in combination as the MMR vaccine, is safe. It is important to look carefully at Rubin’s statement that “People suffer complications from vaccines quite often” and to examine his vague reference to “complications.” Minor side effects such as local swelling and redness at the injection site are indeed common, occurring at a rate of 17 to 30 per 100 doses of vaccine. Other mild reactions, such as a low-grade fever or swollen glands, are also common (5 to 10 per 100 doses) but, again, temporary and not serious. Serious side effects, such as high temperatures that sometimes lead to brief convulsions, are not common. On rare occasions, a skin rash of small, bruiselike spots may appear up to six weeks after vaccination. As a mother and a pediatrician, I understand how worrying these developments are for parents, but the child is fine afterward. Exhaustive studies show neither an increased risk for future illness nor any reason not to proceed with future vaccinations. Anaphylaxis, the only life-threatening complication, is extremely rare (approximately one per 1 million vaccinations) and readily treated: In the United Kingdom between 1997 and 2003, there was a total of 130 reports of anaphylaxis following all vaccinations in that time period (about 117 million). All of these people survived. In contrast, for unvaccinated children, serious complications from measles are common, can be permanent, and include death. One in 10 children who catch measles suffers an ear infection. One in 20 gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death. One in 1,000 gets acute-onset encephalitis, an illness that leaves at least half with permanent brain damage. Vaccines are never 100 percent risk-free, but vaccinating children is much less risky than not vaccinating them. This is why I strongly encourage vaccination. The lack of understanding about these relative risks is what leads the public to be confused and certain misinformed groups to discourage vaccination. Unfortunately, it is children who suffer the fallout: those whose parents choose not to immunize them, babies too young to be immunized, and those who cannot be vaccinated due to a compromised immune system. A recent analysis of the available data published in The Journal of the American Medical Association indicates that “substandard vaccine compliance is likely to blame for the 2015 measles outbreak.” As for the measles and MMR vaccines, there is no evidence, after four decades and millions of shots, linking them to permanent disability—whether autism or any other—or to death. To the contrary, these vaccines have saved millions of lives—over 15 million in this century alone—and prevented serious complications and permanent disability in millions more. Annie Sparrow new york
May 6, 2015 / Our Readers, Eric Alterman, and Annie Sparrow
Does Talking About ‘Women’ Exclude Transgender People From the Fight for Abortion Rights? Does Talking About ‘Women’ Exclude Transgender People From the Fight for Abortion Rights?
Abortion fund activists respond to Katha Pollitt’s opposition to gender-neutral language.
Apr 22, 2015 / Our Readers and Katha Pollitt
Letters Letters
Vietnam as living history; behind every great dictator…; our bazaar government; what is “radical”?; Radio Gaga…
Apr 15, 2015 / Our Readers
Letters Letters
Walk, Don’t Run? George Zornick’s great article on Senator Elizabeth Warren [“Waiting for Warren,” Feb. 23] reminds me of the months before the 1968 primaries. Antiwar liberals and progressives wanted Robert F. Kennedy to announce his candidacy for president. He held back, and Senator McCarthy jumped in, rolling up impressive totals against Lyndon Johnson and demonstrating how damaged the president was. RFK entered the primaries, forced Johnson out and no doubt would have gone on to victory in November. Is Bernie Sanders playing the role of Eugene McCarthy, and is the hesitant Senator Warren playing that of Robert Kennedy? Impressive margins against Clinton in the early primaries could send a clear message that the base of the Democratic Party is sick and tired of corporate Democrats. Run, Liz, run! William F. Johnston tacoma, wash. I am a liberal Democrat, and I am not waiting for Warren. What is wrong with The Nation and other liberal groups? Why are you trying to destroy Hillary? Liberals should unite around Hillary, who is liberal enough for most Americans. It would be difficult for the Democrats to win the presidency three times in a row. Hillary is the best hope. I don’t want to push her to the left. I want her to be in a position where she can win. Reba Shimansky new york Progressives who are crying for Elizabeth Warren to run for president are succumbing to the craving for a woman on a white horse. Warren, if I read her comments correctly, is looking at the long game. If she were to be elected president in 2016, her political career would be over by 2024, which is not long enough to make the changes we need. If she stays in the Senate, she can look forward to two or three decades working for progressive causes, and by 2024 she might be majority leader. Bear in mind that Barack Obama had limited success in implementing his agenda, not only because he didn’t try all that hard, but also because he was saddled with Harry Reid, possibly the most ineffectual Senate majority leader in recent history. A progressive president without effective allies in Congress is just a celebrity. Ted Kennedy accomplished more as a senator than he likely would have if he had become president. Liz, don’t run! Tim Connor portland, ore. I was aggrieved to read George Zornick’s article in The Nation about the MoveOn–Democracy for America campaign to draft my senator, Elizabeth Warren, to run for the presidency. Zornick states that there are no other politicians “being drafted by the party’s grassroots.” But there are! Progressive Democrats of America and other groups have been organizing our “Run, Bernie, Run—as a Democrat” campaign since last May. We have nearly 20,000 signatures on a petition, and have worked with Senator Sanders at house parties around the country. Indeed, Sanders has talked to enthusiastic crowds in New Hampshire and Iowa. I continue to wonder why two of the country’s largest progressive groups would blow several million dollars on a candidate who has said numerous times that she will not run. This push for a noncandidate will ensure the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Run, Bernie, run! Russell Freedman lanesborough, mass. Elizabeth Warren openly supported Israel’s scorched-earth tactics against Palestinians and condoned the massacre in Gaza. She is no progressive, and if somebody were to tell me she is not running for president, I would savor that news with a sigh of relief. Sasboy Warren in Verse Lizzy Warren told the facts And gave ol’ Wall Street forty whacks The banksters shuddered and did wail: This woman wants us all in jail! The SEC did dish out fines (a pittance to their bottom lines) When Gitmo’s empty of its guests Let’s fill it with these greedy pests. Bob Kenyon batavia, ill. The Odd Couplet There are only 40,000 publishing poets in the United States, which means that I can think of a good 39,999 less inappropriate to the pages of The Nation than The New Criterion’s William Logan [“Snow,” March 2/9]. What next? Rick Santorum filling in for Katha Pollitt? At least Calvin Trillin doesn’t have to tack on an unnecessary “perhaps” just to make his rhymes work. Ron Silliman paoli, pa. Heard It Here First Many thanks for bringing a great American laureate to bear on the “efficacy” of air power as an instrument of US foreign policy [John Ashbery, “Forget Where I Heard It,” March 2/9]. Our poetry appreciation club has just voted to adopt the central line of this trenchant critique as our motto: “Otherwise, as coma says, my beans, my peas, my coma….” John S. Harris st. louis Stranger Than Fiction Alice Kaplan omits an important fact from her discussion of Albert Camus’s story “The Guest” [“Camus Redux,” Feb. 23]: the fact that French colonial policy, between the 1870s and 1940, replaced Algerian wheat fields with vineyards. As Philip Naylor writes in his history of France and Algeria, this was “a stark repudiation of the colonized’s identity, given the Muslim proscription of alcohol.” Furthermore, the land that this policy left to Algerians “was usually poor” and could be cultivated “only by traditional methods that hastened erosion,” leading to soil exhaustion and, ultimately, “starvation.” This fact clarifies the plight of the prisoner in the story, a nameless Arab reduced to murder in a fight with a kinsman over grain. As Kaplan recognizes, the Arab (or the story) “speaks the truth” in questioning whether, in the midst of a famine, any European has “the right to judge the Arabs,” and whether it was “too late for a European to break bread with his Arab brothers.” But “The Guest” also challenges its readers to remember or discover the history behind this truth, a history that must have been well-known to Camus and to the brothers of the nameless prisoner in his story. Anita E. Feldman new york Correction In Michael T. Klare’s “2, 3, Many Vietnams” (March 16), the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of main-force US troops into Vietnam was mistakenly identified, through no fault of the writer, as February 1965. The correct date is March 1965.
Mar 4, 2015 / Our Readers