George Will is such a tool...
|
|
| Also listed in: 6 groups |
This is a letter I wrote to NEWSWEEK AND George Will after reading his column in the 5/5/08 issue:
Questions for George WillFrom:Elizabeth McKinley (bigmacsmama@hotmail.com)Sent:Sat 5/10/08 8:30 PMTo: letters@newsweek.comIn response to George Will's column in Newsweek, May 5, 2008, I have some comments and questions. Knowing that Mr. Will is a well-known conservative, it's understandable that he views the world through a lense from which very few Americans view our country or the world--a lense of privilege and isolation. Mr. Will, don't allow yourself to think that you know what it's like to be an average, "normal" American trying to live and work in this nation as it is now. Unbridled capitalism isn't a virtue for an individual or a country, and your questions challenge Senator Obama to provide answers for a system that no longer works for most of us. While Microsoft may have exceeded Exxon in profits during 2007, the average American doesn't need to purchase or upgrade their computer on a weekly basis. We do, however, wonder why the price of gas and groceries get significantly higher with each trip to the pump or grocery store while oil executives likely don't blink an eye when they have their personal staff fuel up the family jet. Yes, that oil executive has an obligation to investors and shareholders--but where's the sense of obligation to people who can't afford to invest--fellow Americans? Isn't that omission (of shared wealth) somewhat unpatriotic? Therein lies the problem of capitalism: it benefits only those who have enough money to play the game. The rest of us are left to our own devices. I have news for you: the moneymakers don't keep our economy dynamic, the average-income working people do. If it weren't for us, you wouldn't have your megacorporations or factories, your stocks or your mansions. If we lose everything then you will lose everything too, material and otherwise. As for life getting "progressively worse" (Michelle Obama), it has for most of us. We may be living longer but we aren't living better. Most of us will never be able to retire, and not because we were greedy and didn't save or invest. We could never afford to save or invest. Your column is subtle in its suggestion that it's better to penalize average Americans than investors and the wealthy. As for matters of race and legislation, I can't help but notice that you are comparing apples and oranges by suggesting that the Michigan initiative is identical to those in California and Washington--it's not. As for the arrogance of the Bush administration, there is a difference between being firm and being stubborn. It is possible to be firm, diplomatic and protective without dismantling all of our foreign ties, something that apparently never occurred to George W. Bush--or to you. Some words come to mind: xenophobic jingoistic capitalism gone wild. Your column illustrates a naivety unique to American conservatives. Your words suggest that you still believe in Ronald Reagan's trickle-down theory of economics. 20 to 30 years later, many of us are still waiting for that trickle to reach us. We Obama supporters are not under the spell of any false belief or hope that Senator Obama can resolve the disaster of the Bush years in one year or two terms, or even longer. But we do believe he has his priorities in order, and this will carry him into the White House.
If you publish this (and I'm sure you won't since you don't seem to be aware if the fact that the United States extends beyond the New England states and the Tri-state area and there are real people actually living in those places!), please say this to Mr. Will on my behalf: BITE ME.
Questions for George WillFrom:Elizabeth McKinley (bigmacsmama@hotmail.com)Sent:Sat 5/10/08 8:30 PMTo: letters@newsweek.comIn response to George Will's column in Newsweek, May 5, 2008, I have some comments and questions. Knowing that Mr. Will is a well-known conservative, it's understandable that he views the world through a lense from which very few Americans view our country or the world--a lense of privilege and isolation. Mr. Will, don't allow yourself to think that you know what it's like to be an average, "normal" American trying to live and work in this nation as it is now. Unbridled capitalism isn't a virtue for an individual or a country, and your questions challenge Senator Obama to provide answers for a system that no longer works for most of us. While Microsoft may have exceeded Exxon in profits during 2007, the average American doesn't need to purchase or upgrade their computer on a weekly basis. We do, however, wonder why the price of gas and groceries get significantly higher with each trip to the pump or grocery store while oil executives likely don't blink an eye when they have their personal staff fuel up the family jet. Yes, that oil executive has an obligation to investors and shareholders--but where's the sense of obligation to people who can't afford to invest--fellow Americans? Isn't that omission (of shared wealth) somewhat unpatriotic? Therein lies the problem of capitalism: it benefits only those who have enough money to play the game. The rest of us are left to our own devices. I have news for you: the moneymakers don't keep our economy dynamic, the average-income working people do. If it weren't for us, you wouldn't have your megacorporations or factories, your stocks or your mansions. If we lose everything then you will lose everything too, material and otherwise. As for life getting "progressively worse" (Michelle Obama), it has for most of us. We may be living longer but we aren't living better. Most of us will never be able to retire, and not because we were greedy and didn't save or invest. We could never afford to save or invest. Your column is subtle in its suggestion that it's better to penalize average Americans than investors and the wealthy. As for matters of race and legislation, I can't help but notice that you are comparing apples and oranges by suggesting that the Michigan initiative is identical to those in California and Washington--it's not. As for the arrogance of the Bush administration, there is a difference between being firm and being stubborn. It is possible to be firm, diplomatic and protective without dismantling all of our foreign ties, something that apparently never occurred to George W. Bush--or to you. Some words come to mind: xenophobic jingoistic capitalism gone wild. Your column illustrates a naivety unique to American conservatives. Your words suggest that you still believe in Ronald Reagan's trickle-down theory of economics. 20 to 30 years later, many of us are still waiting for that trickle to reach us. We Obama supporters are not under the spell of any false belief or hope that Senator Obama can resolve the disaster of the Bush years in one year or two terms, or even longer. But we do believe he has his priorities in order, and this will carry him into the White House.
If you publish this (and I'm sure you won't since you don't seem to be aware if the fact that the United States extends beyond the New England states and the Tri-state area and there are real people actually living in those places!), please say this to Mr. Will on my behalf: BITE ME.
Bitter and white Elizabeth "Hussein" McKinley