SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
A number of people wrote with comments about the item I posted last week, “Obama Wins Coveted Hamas Un-endorsement with AIPAC Speech”. Here are two different takes, both that make a lot of sense. First, is part of a letter from Marcus Wofford, who writes:
Let’s be honest here, it ain’t hard to figure out why Obama’s stand has changed. Judging from all the media outlets over the last
couple of months, Obama was in serious danger of losing the Jewish vote…It is really questionable whether or not it’s possible for a Democrat to be elected without Jewish support. So, ipso facto, Obama makes a hawkish speech catering to the Zionist movement. Reining in Israel will take a movement from within American
Jewry. And, honestly, that doesn’t look like it’s anywhere in the pipeline.
However, one thing is certain, McCain is as likely to
antagonize the Religious Right segment of his base by negotiating
with the Palestinians as he is to sprout wings and fly. Obama may have flip-flopped, but he’s still our only hope.
The second letter is from Joel Harvey, who said:
A guy that you thought would be honest about the situation in Israeli-occupied Palestine does what every other major party politician has to do, murder his own values and belief system…A shameful display by a man who somehow seemed larger to me than maybe he should have in retrospect. The Democratic Party and Obama are behind the curve on every issue of importance to thinking people in this country and in the world, this type of pandering only goes to demonstrate the inadequacy of the two
More from Ken Silverstein:
Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am
How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy
Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am
A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”