Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
‘Bush in 3rd Debate Tars Kerry as “Far Left”‘
Senator Kerry’s invocation of Mary Cheney in response to Bob Schieffer’s question about homosexuality was completely inappropriate and absolutely tasteless [“Bush, in 3rd Debate, Tars Kerry as ‘Far Left,’ ” Josh Gerstein, Page 1, October 14, 2004].
Ms. Cheney’s sexual orientation, while not a secret, is certainly no business of Mr. Kerry’s, and he was out of line in using her as an example to answer a question that needed no personal illustration.
If Mr. Kerry felt compelled to cite a specific individual, why not instead choose his fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Rep. Barney Frank? After all, Mr. Frank, who is openly gay and helped Mr. Kerry prepare for this very debate, was almost certainly in the audience.
Many questioned Senator Edwards’s motives when he mentioned Ms.Cheney in the vice presidential debate, but Mr. Kerry’s doing so lends credence to the theory that both were cheap, calculated political shots designed to alienate members of the Republican “base” who may not have been aware of Ms. Cheney’s sexual orientation.
Both Messrs. Kerry and Edwards owe Ms. Cheney an apology.
BRAGG VAN ANTWERP
Manhattan
American Jobs Picture
The myth of mobility is a conservative favorite but the data contradicts the fairy tale; claims to the contrary have been decisively rebutted – references on request [“American Jobs Picture is Bright,” Harold Furchgott-Roth, Business, October 5, 2004].
When graduating students in their first jobs are – correctly – excluded, intergenerational mobility has been and remains low in America, as in most developed economies.
Except in rare periods, like the immediate post-war decades, when the rising tide lifted all boats, the children of working-class parents mostly stay in the working class. They remain at risk when labor markets deteriorate; insecurity and limited opportunity are their destinies.
When job growth slows, government fails to raise the minimum wage, and employers are left free to deny union representation to their employees, wages will remain stagnant, and those at the bottom will leave their children exposed to the same dismal destiny as their parents.
SUMNER M. ROSEN
Emeritus, Columbia University
Vice chairman
National Jobs for All Coalition
Manhattan
Academics and Ideologies
It is fashionable among today’s academics to pretend that objectivity is a myth. Thus, David M. O’Neill, a professor of economics at Hunter College, writes, “We can’t keep our ideologies from creeping into our journalism or research” [“Bill O’Reilly’s Odd Moment,” Letters, October 14, 2004].
Why would we want to? Because, he writes, such pursuits are better performed without ideology.
“Better?” By what standard?
“The only reason one set of facts becomes ‘evil’ rather than ‘unimportant’ or ‘good’ is because human beings choose to feel that way about them,” he baldly asserts. In support, he points out that some Germans spat on Oskar Schindler’s rescue of Jews.
But why should anyone “choose to feel” that this fact is important?
Mr. O’Neill’s “I am right” rests on philosophical presuppositions about the nature of knowledge and values, which means, in his case, simply on what he chooses to feel.
In his view, “ideology”- i.e., abstract, evaluative ideas – is an agent of distortion. This means that your viewpoint is distorted because it is a viewpoint – “man is blind, because he has eyes – deaf, because he has ears – deluded, because he has a mind,” in the words of novelist Ayn Rand.
“Right?” In his view, there is no such thing. There is no cognition without evaluation. Cognition depends on identifying essentials, weighing evidence, assessing credibility, and judging facts:
Is Larry Stewart’s testimony relevant? Is lead paint harmful? Is Dan Rather reliable? Does President Bush follow his principles? A mind unwilling to judge values makes itself unable to judge facts.
True, to validate one’s ideas it may pay to listen to those who disagree – if they are honest and reality-oriented – for they may indicate evidence one has overlooked, or errors in one’s reasoning.
After Plato and Aristotle, this is not news. But objectivity does not mean openness to all viewpoints; it means adherence to reality. In journalism, objectivity means presenting the reader with all the facts necessary to make an informed judgment.
If there are many sides to an issue, a reader does need to be acquainted with them – but not as equally valid. Objectivity does not absolve a journalist from the responsibility of being critical and evaluative in determining the facts.
On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that broadening one’s exposure to arbitrary fantasies is any “better” than just one fantasy. And though Mr. O’Neill says that not all beliefs are worthy of support, he offers no grounds for seeing them as anything but arbitrary.
His position is typical of the intellectual bankruptcy of today’s universities, and a good reason to pull the plug on them.
Mr. O’Neill may have concluded that his own intellect is impotent, but that does not justify his projecting his condition onto the rest of the human race.
PAUL BLAIR
Manhattan
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
