Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 20 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Terrorism as irrational?
[Read the article: "Munich"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But the artists and filmmakers who are fondest of that handy platitude are never able to tell us what the answer is, particularly in cases involving terrorist acts, acts that generally exist outside the context of sane moral reasoning. Diplomacy, obviously, is a much more civil and ethical way of solving disputes than violence is. But if terrorists were responsive to diplomacy, we'd have to call them by another name."
Talk about simple-minded platitudes. So George Bush is right? "They attack us because they hate our way of life." Violence is the best answer to terrorist attacks?
Political terrorism is not the act of insane mass murderers. In the context of violent political conflicts it is quite sane and rational, and sadly often quite effective. Would Arik Sharon have pulled out of Gaza without Palestinian terrorism? Not likely. And look at all the "benefits" bin Laden has reaped by his attack on the U.S. He has gotten the U.S. involved in two wars that are draining our energies and which serve as recruiting and training grounds for his jihad against the West. He even got the U.S. to withdraw its bases from Saudia Arabia (one of his key demands). Quite sane and rational from his perspective.
What IS irrational is the knee-jerk reaction that terror invokes: the need to lash out in revenge, the willingness to act in a way that turns you into the moral equivalent of the terrorists, the willingness to ignore the innocent victims of YOUR acts of violence who will turn around and justify their violence by your murders and on in endless cycle of blood letting. Not to speak off the irrational fear which allows us to exaggerate the threat of terrorism and to give up hard-won freedoms in the name of "protecting" ourselves.
Violence begets violence. There are many ways to respond to terrorist violence and yes diplomacy is one of them. And diplomacy doesn't mean "appeasement" or giving the terrorists what they want (in fact, the violent reaction is exactly giving the terrorists what they want). It means looking hard at complex conflicts and trying to find imaginative ways to solve them. In the end they almost always do somehow get resolved, except in the interim thousands of lives are lost and wasted for no good reason except to appease our instinct for revenge and satisfy the power lust of voracious politicians.
-
Sad state of affiars
[Read the article: My life as a man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it just me, or are others noting a decidable decline in Salon's quality of writing? Low on insight, lots of whining, nagging and complaining. O'Hehir, for example, instead of taking the author on his/her own terms, complains about the fact that Vincent didn't write the book he wanted (bare-all memoir of sexy dyke pretending to be a guy with all the dirty bits left in), nags the readers with his pathetic attempts at cheap psychoanalysis ("did you see how s/he avoids confronting her obvious gender confusion and represses her penis envy?") and whines about his lot in life as a man ("gee, despite the rewards, life as male 2.0 sure is challenging!").
And then the comments! If the level of antipathy between men and women is this high in the real world, then we don't have to worry about any population explosion. If anything, the "discussion" here just confirms Vincent's view that men and women are two different sects.
Reading this review (and the far better one in tomorrow's NY Times Book Review) did convey the impression that Vincent is a highly intelligent, provocative and original woman, the kind I would love to meet. Can't wait to read the book.
-
I can't believe...
[Read the article: "V for Vendetta"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...Zacharek didn't go into more details about why Alan Moore totally disavowed himself from this movie. Even the New York Times had a well written, in-depth, front of the Sunday Arts and Leisure section piece about this (last Sunday):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Frankly, I don't care if a movie critic likes or dislikes any given film. When I read a review I want to come out of it a bit enlightened about the broader cultural context in which this film lives. There are those of us who remember when Salon once serialized cutting edge graphic novels and actually had interesting, well-thought out articles about edgy popular culture. Alan Moore is one of the most original and thoughtful creators working in a popular cultural medium. Whatever Zacharek may think of him and graphic novels, surely he provides enough "material" for her to have written something more enlightening. Just because she was bored with the movie, doesn't mean she has to bore us. If we want "thumbs up/thumbs down" type reviews we can read USA Today.