Page One

Letters to the Editor

Tuesday January 16, 2001

If you’re angry, do something about it 

 

Editor:  

 

I am a recovered liberal. There are many reasons why I am a recovered liberal, but I guess the most obvious one is that I feel that the whole idea of liberalism simply doesn’t work.  

About ten years ago, when I was on welfare in upstate New York, I was walking with my friend Allen and we were talking about a certain woman who lived in my building.  

She, like me, was on welfare. Unlike me, she had a son who had a variety of behavior problems due to her ex-boyfriend molesting him. This woman, who I will call Mary, came from a very dysfunctional background. Mary herself had been the victim of incest along with many of her brothers and sisters.  

As my friend, Allen, and I were walking along I had casually mentioned that I felt sorry for Mary. My friend Allen went on the offensive by saying, “Nancy, how is feeling sorry for her benefiting her?” He then went on to say how arrogant and presumptuous I was to say that about another human being.  

I became immediately angry and defensive. Remember, I was a liberal then. I went through the whole liberal monologue of saying things like:  

“What do you mean I am not helping her!,” “What could I do for her?” and “I’m in the same boat as she’s in!” The last one was not true.  

I didn’t agree with Allen and was offended that he thought I was being unkind, but I kept turning what he said over and over in my mind. Especially the phrase, “How is feeling sorry for her benefiting her?”  

Much to my chagrin, I had to get really honest with myself and admit that it didn’t benefit her or anyone else for that matter. An amazing thing happened. I actually changed my behavior and mentality; what a concept! 

The next time I saw Mary, I offered to baby-sit for her. The next time I headed to the grocery store I stopped by her apartment to see if she needed anything. Sometimes she did, sometimes she didn’t.  

After awhile I noticed something profound. My feelings of sorrow dissipated. The relationship we now had resembled a friendship. Even though we were not intellectually compatible, we could still benefit from one another’s company. Sometimes, all she needed was someone who would just listen to her talk about her past trials and tribulations.  

When I was a liberal, my mentality when I heard something tragic on the news was: “But somebody should do something!” or “That’s not my problem.”  

My point is that it is not enough to feel compassion for people on welfare or the homeless or inner-city youth. You must do something. And before you can use the overused liberal excuse of “But I don’t have time!” know that you do have time. You have time to watch crappy television shows, gossip about people at work, talk about the latest celebrity wedding or baby, and be in yet another co-dependent relationship.  

You could just as easily eliminate any or all of these things that don’t benefit anyone, especially yourself, and do any one of the following: donate blood, help an overworked single parent by offering to baby-sit, clean out your clothes closet and donate all the things you never wear to charity, offer to clean an elderly persons apartment for free, run an errand for someone who doesn’t have a car, volunteer for a nonprofit, buy a new pillow for a homeless person.  

Are you angry that the world has gone to hell in a hand basket? Are you angry enough to do something about it? If not, then maybe you’re not that angry.  

 

Nancy Muldoon 

San Francisco 

 

Just say no to Donald Rumsfield 

 

Dear Editor: 

Donald Rumsfeld must not be confirmed for Secretary of Defense. He 

harbors a single-minded compulsion to expand and deploy the National Missile Defense system, usually referred to as “Star Wars.” 

This project reflects a backward-looking mentality, yearning for the days of the Cold War, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were racing to see who could build the most missiles capable of destroying all life on earth. Star Wars was expensive, wasteful, dangerous, and impractical then, and even moreso now, when no nuclear nation threatens us. I believe Rumsfeld’s real agenda is to funnel billions of dollars back into defense industries. This is bad fiscally because is drains resources from more productive uses in the economy. This is a bad politically because it reverses three decades of international treaties to reduce nuclear stockpiles. It is bad ecologically because even accidental discharge of these weapons would wreak terrible havoc on the environment. 

Rumsfeld was nominated for the post because President-designate Bush campaigned on the issue of deploying Star Wars. That is precisely the reason why the Senate should reject Rumsfeld. The Senate doesn’t need a “nannygate” excuse when the majority of the Americans whose votes were counted voted against Bush, and his father’s failed policies. 

 

Bruce Joffe 

Oakland 

 

Bush Presidency is like Mexico’s election debacle 

 

Dear Editor:  

Allow me to explain why I will protest the George W. Bush inauguration on January 20. My role as election observer in Mexico from 1994 to 2000 educated me to the many degrees of legitimacy and illegitimacy possible in an election. As official foreign observer for the 1994 Mexican presidential election, I witnessed physical intimidation of the opposition, ballot box stealing, and the shock of seeing computers in the State of Veracruz vote return center that had cables going through newly punched holes in the wall into a building next door. Return center authorities told me the building was abandoned and that no one was permitted to enter.  

In 1994, the new Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo was sworn in amidst some grumbling, but also with much denial, and with talk of how the electoral results must be accepted for peace and to keep the country functioning.  

Between 1995 and 2000, I timed history research trips to Mexico to coincide with state elections for which I observed the process. With each passing year the campaigning and voting appeared less manipulated, there was increased media openness toward opposition parties, and there seemed to be less fear among the populace in publicly supporting an opposition party. Finally, on July 2, 2000 I saw a presidential election that I had to conclude was essentially open and fair. To me, Mexico had become a democracy.  

Then I experienced November 7, 2000 in the U.S. While it appears that the extent of the fraud in the decisive state of Florida did not appear to match 1994 in Mexico, it did appear to be at the 1995 or 1996 levels.  

That is not legitimate enough. I consider my country no longer be a democracy. I must protest this situation. That is what I saw some people do in Mexico in 1994.  

 

Theodore G. Vincent  

Berkeley 

 

The writer is the author of “Black Power and the Garvey Movement” and the forthcoming “The Legacy of Guerrero: First Black Indian President of Mexico.”