Flak Magazine Letters
Sep-Dec 2001
Flak welcomes any and all feedback from its readers. Due to quality constraints, not all letters can be printed in their entirety. Letters may be edited for length. Please send your letters to the writer of the piece you'd like to comment on.
If you'd like your comments to be reprinted on our letters page, please give your full name, city, state, province and country, as appropriate. We will not give out your e-mail address or URL without your permission. Unsigned letters will not be printed.
Send general letters to letters@flakmag.com.
12-30-01
To: Claire Zulkey
Re: Sex and the City
Reading your letter of jealousy on the lives of the Sex and the city girls I found myself completely disagreeing with everything you wrote. I think instead of being in awe of them you should agree that as a viewer it's just a sitcom that gives people watching the inspiration to maybe become a journalist (like Carrie) or a PR (like Samantha). Instead you described these as sluts with or without a heart and as a big fan of the series I would describe you as a sad woman with absolutely no sense of imagination or humour.
Vincent
12-27-01
To: Alissa Rowinsky
Re: Venus Razor
I too had to have a Venus razor for Christmas. What a joke! I have tried it twice, and so far-maybe half of one leg is semi-close to smooth. I don't know if I'm not holding it right or what, but my upper leg is OK. My daughter used hers tonight (it was a stocking stuffer) and she had no trouble navigating her legs with it!
kbooknerd@aol.com
12-23-01
To: Sean Weitner
Re: Fellowship of the Ring
"Alright Elijah, I would like you to act nervous in this scene." "Ok, you're worried now." "Frightened, you're now frightened." I wonder how many times Peter Jackson must've spewed those lines to Elijah Wood (Frodo Baggins) during the filming of The Fellowship of the Ring.
But according to film critic Sean Weitner the acting was "roundly marvelous." Sean must've been "tolkien" something before his viewing.
Since Sean has already chosen to provide a half-assed outline of the story, I'll merely cite certain elements of the film that I wish to "critique."
Hidden somewhere (maybe underneath the letter "Y" in "HOLLYWOOD" that's etched upon that ugly hill) there is a rulebook, and in that rulebook (I think it's rule #142A) it states "all movies must contain sex appeal." And it's quite apparent that The Fellowship of the Ring followed lamely. If I remember the character Arwen correctly she served drinks in The Fellowship of the Ring (though she develops further in the continuation of the saga). But according to New Line Cinema and Frances Walsh (screenplay) Arwen is supposed to save Frodo's life, outrun Ringwraiths, and call upon a mighty flood. Now, I'm not some zealot of J.R.R.'s original story, if the producers wanted to add a romantic subplot that my girlfriend can salivate to, I'll let it slide.
But Arwen's character is poorly developed through several (I think two) badly done (cheesy dissolves/music, and cliche momentary pauses) romantic interactions with Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen). And what had to suffer because of the time that was wasted? Characterization of The Fellowship.
"You have my Bow, and my sword, and my axe." Those are the deepest emotional lines you will ever get to hear from the fellowship that you'll watch for an hour and a half (but no worries, you got to see that minute long romantic embrace between Liv and Viggo). Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) is utterly ignored up until the last scene. Should I even start on Pippin and Merry (they were in the movie, right?)? I found myself only communicating with Legolas on a "wow, that was cool how he did that two arrows with one shot thingy" basis, or comparing Gimli to an oversized Troll doll. But remember — the performances were "roundly marvelous."
Battle scenes are the only thing redeeming about this flick, but even they've been done better (Braveheart, Gladiator). There is a hilarious Skirmish between Gandalf and Saruman that had the audience in an uproar (I sincerely hope this was supposed to be laughed at).
Alright, staying true to the movie, I'm going to have to cut down on alot in order not to waste your time too much. Being an avid reader of Flak Magazine (even memorizing points brought up in your reviews with the intention of defeating my friends in critical debates) I am disappointed with Sean's review. These flaws aren't slight mistakes, some are even done intentionally, and it disgusts me to see this film receiving such praise.
Sincerly,
Joshua G.
12-18-01
To: Clay Risen
Re: W.G. Sebald: In Memoriam
Thanks for your piece on Sebald. I was upset at his death — he was one of my favorite authors. I have wasted my life in not learning German as two of my favorite authors, Sebald and Thomas Bernhard, have written in it. It was somewhat shocking to return home on Friday night after an uneventful evening to discover his death. Quite stunning.
Anyway, thanks for your piece. The elegiac tone he strikes in his works will surely now be heightened as I read Austerlitz and his forthcoming work.
Please continue your great writing.
— Ted Warin
12-11-01
To: James Norton
Re: Eziba catalog
Jim
It is so easy to pontificate about the "commercialization of cultures" in pseudo-sophisticated tones when the naysayer's posterior is plunked down firmly in an easy chair.
Does it matter that the sale of their work puts bread in the mouth of the craftspeople? Does it matter that the historical bridges between cultures have mostly found their start in trade (a preferable choice to the other traditional form of intercultural interface: war, I should think)?
Indeed, those items marketed by Eziba do not come with a user's manual; however, believe it or not, there are such things as libraries, college courses, and, of course the Web, where information regarding cultural customs and rituals are readily available to those curious enough to seek it.
For those who wish to let the objects speak for themselves, I do trust that the "mana" present in the artifacts themselves will make itself known without necessarily needing academic sources.
I lived in Touareg country for a year. The Hoggar's artisans are very glad to have a worlwide clientele. But again, they lack the perspicacity to realize that what they are crafting are mere "trinkets", as they have not yet been enlightened by your point of view.
You column reminded me of a favorite statement made by Brendan Behan on the BBC when asked about his opinion of critics "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem, they see it done all the time, but can't do it themselves; no wonder they're a bitter lot"
BB
— Sonja Christensen
Re: Eziba catalog
Dear Ms. Christensen,
Thanks for your stinging rebuttal. I have to admit that I considered your perspective when writing the piece. If you'll note, I mentioned the economic beneifts of the catalog:
>Moreover, an undisclosed portion of their stock is given to the Eziba >Foundation, dedicated to improving artisans' lives in developing countries. >That's damn respectable.
But my point was not the Eziba is a bad thing — it's that it hides and oversimplifies the essential values of the cultures it purports to represent. You seem to have missed the essential point of my review — not that we shouldn't buy stuff from Eziba, but that Eziba should do a better job of making its contextualizing catalog copy more thorough, nuanced and accurate.
You've got every right to defend the catalog — it's great that it makes a positive difference for artisans in developing countries. But that doesn't mean you can't push for them to present their wares in a more intelligent way.
>For those who wish to let the objects speak for themselves, I do trust that the >"mana" present in the artifacts themselves will make itself known without >necessarily needing academic sources
I certainly hope you wouldn't go to a museum, ignore all the tags and literature, and just absorb the "mana." Writing has a point — it helps you understand the role a particular artifact played in the culture at hand, and, in turn, understand the culture itself on a deeper, broader level.
As residents of the First World, we have a duty, I think, to go beyond that — to truly struggle to understand the origins and values of other cultures. Academic sources are a start.
best regards,
James Norton
12-05-01
To: John Gorenfeld
Re: Bulletin Board Systems
I just thought I'd thank you for your misc. article on BBS's. I can't remember the last time a wave of nostalgia hit me that hard. I can still remember watching the ANSI welcome screen of the Golden Palace BBS scroll across my screen at 2400 baud. Even the 90 minute .WAV file downloads were digital bliss compared to the days of the World Wide Wait.
I met the first girl I ever kissed on a BBS. Her dad was the SysOp. Many long nights in front of the split-screen chat were spent typing sweet nothings.
Thanks again.
-AJ
11-30-01
To: Bob Cook
Re: Guardian Angel sobriety test
Loved the article, but why only yellow and white test results? When furnished with one of those puppies, if my "match-sized" stick isn't brown, it just wasn't a good night.
They once installed breath-a-lyzers in a few DC-area bars a while back. Thay had to take them out because instead of serving as a safety mechanism, they served as impartial judges. Nothing settles a bet of "who's the most plastered" than a true, blue breath-a-lyzer.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't play the at home version of the game using the Guardian Angel brand.
-AJ
11-06-01
To: Clay Risen
Re: Franzen's Dilemma
I don't normally do this, write in response to pieces — no, let me emend myself, I never do this — but let me say how terrifically insightful I thought your article about Franzen was, particularly the section where you draw out the full implications of his gaffe, where you lament what was lost for all concerned — Franzen, the literary world, hoi polloi — in a moment of fear of Franzen's losing the respect of DeLillo, Antrim, et al. The real crying shame seems, to me, to be that The Corrections expressly aims to chart a course similar to that of other Oprah books: an admirable course, a course right to the human heart.
Franzen had seemed to be a third way between Wally Lamb and Thomas Pynchon. Perhaps the work itself remains so, nonetheless, if not the man--and aren't we supposed to see the fullest espression of any author's person precisely in his or her work and not in his or her biography?
Still, I can't help but agree that there is something lost here. We could have used a prominent generalist intellectual, a kind of post-post-modern Kerouac bridging gaps between worlds across the span of his impressive reach.
Now it's back to the old binary. Let's hope there come more aspirants to the territory Franzen sets out in that wonderful section you quoted, and let's hope they have the courage and insight--not to mention the humility--to seize the opportunity to lead when it is before them. This could all have been avoided if Franzen had had a bedrock sense of place and purpose--if he'd had the courage of his convictions, if he'd had, in a word, a little grace.
Thanks for the insight.
Sincerely,
Matthew Thomas
11-02-01
To: Bob Cook
Re: Micheal Jackson: Not a Thriller
Dear Editor,
I write in response to Bob Cook's piece regarding the "real" reasons for Michael Jackson's longevity and success over what has turned out to be an expansive career, at least. Mr. Cook claims that Michael Jackson is to the recording industry, and pop music what Billy Zane is to Hollywood, famous for no reason after all these years. A fixture, a clinger-on, a has been though Mr. Cook doesn't seem to understand either just what Michael Jackson was to begin with, and the absolute necessity of that to all that we have experienced pop musically since. That, to me, is sad. If his whole narrow-minded editorial was opined simply to air his street cred by dropping in the Velvet Underground reference in the end, then I hope it was worth the effort.
What Mr. Cook failed to note was that while Michael Jackson may be washed up now, in the beginning of his solo career and even further back than that, Michael Jackson wasn't simply relevant, he was a pioneer. Hell, even transitioning from child stardom to young adulthood to full grown solo acclaim deserves some accolades, does it not? Not from my friend, Mr. Cook. Musically speaking, what Michael Jackson did on Off the Wall and Thriller changed the face of pop music forever, and that is not to say it created a blueprint for talentless hard bodies to gyrate and whine. Michael Jackson has never had what one would call a hard body, but he wrote interesting music, and made momentous productions of that music while the world watched Hip Hop be born and rock n' roll die. Hardly a one off to make the biggest selling record ever in such a time. And while his style may seem to lack versatility, Michael Jackson hardly seems to type to aspire to be like Madonna. And in his defense, he did move quite seamlessly from glittery glove, to no glove, to arm brace, to no arm brace, or has Mr. Cook forgotten about those good times as well?
My feeling is, whether you own Thriller on CD or not, somehow it shaped your music collection back then, and your knowledge of pop music and culture now. More, if it didn't, then you should really reflect on what you've done with your life. Mr. Cook, in particular. To say Michael Jackson doesn't quite fit now, and that maybe Invincible will end up being his last hurrah, if that, is fair enough, but to say that Thriller is not enduring, to say that Michael Jackson's historical relevance is insignificant as it applies to the musical landscape, to say that any of his past success is jeopardized or sullied by him putting out another record, mediocre as it may be...well, that's just ignorant.
Very Sincerely Yours,
Emily Bozeman
10-25-01
To: James Norton
Re: Autocrat coffee syrup
Dear Mr. Norton,
As a native of Rhode Island, I want to thank you for the amusing article on the official drink of Rhode Island. You see, like most children in RI, I was weaned on the stuff. Yes there were other flavored milks available; chocolate and strawberry as I recall. But none were as tasty as coffee milk. When Starbucks came out w/their bottled version I was thrilled — because I wasn't living in RI at the time and like so many Rhode Island favorites (clam cakes for one-but that's another story altogether!) you can't get them anywhere else!)
I'm not sure what I can tell you about their logo or slogan, except that it was the little bird — a swallow — that would sing their praises, no doubt borne in a time of innocence where marketing was concerned. Try coffee syrup with some ice cream & milk in a blender and you'd get another Rhode Island favorite-a cabinet aka a milkshake!
peace&love Always,
Esther Moore
10-25-01
To: James Norton
Re: Autocrat coffee syrup
Dear Jim:
I really enjoyed your review of Autocrat coffee syrup. I was pondering your question about the bird on the label — is it possible that the red bird is a reference to Rhode Island's official state bird, the Rhode Island Red? Of course, the Red is a hen, and the bird on the label is most likely the swallow of the slogan, telling us something (though I've never seen a red swallow before...). Maybe the designers at Autocrat were just trying to strengthen their ties with Rhode Island officialdom.
Enjoy the pie,
Joan
10-08-01
To: James Norton
Re: Deadly Distractions
Sir,
While Shell's "Deadly Distractions" television ad is, as you pointed out, both ubiquitous and annoying, I have to take issue with your flippant dismissal of the problem the ad addresses. According to a 1996 NHTSA study, the agency estimates that driver distraction in all of its various forms probably contributes to between 20 and 30 percent of all motor vehicle crashes. Given that there are (approximately) 40,000 deaths per year in the US caused by motor vehicle crashes, one can conclude that "driving while distracted" is a contributing factor in (very approximately) 10,000 deaths per year in this country (cf. number that died in Sept. 11 WTC attack).
It's certainly in my top 100 concerns (I ride a motorcycle), though it is not in yours (perhaps you prefer to conduct business on the phone while driving).
Regards,
Vonn Marsch
Re: Deadly Distractions
Mr. Marsch,
Thanks for your reply. I should have made this more clear in my review:
The issue is not so much that "deadly distractions" are an unimportant risk. It's that a barrage of TV ads will do nothing to correct this sort of low-lying, day-to-day stupidity. I agree that the problem is real, but in my opinion, it's certainly not one that can be corrected by a public relations campaign.
Furthermore, there are a number of problems that are more serious and/or much more correctable by the spread of information.
And for the record, I never — ever — talk on my cellphone while driving. Or even own a car, for that matter. I'm a pedestrian, and proud of it.
best regards,
Jim
10-01-01
To: James Norton
Re: Anti Anti-War
Sir,
How can we say this is not a "war" against Islam when it appears that many of their children are taught and encouraged to be martyrs? How can we say this is not a "war" against Islam when the "terrorists" are funded by every Islamic/Arab/Persian country in SW Asia and Africa? How can we say this is not a "war" against Islam when the "terrorists" receive aid and confort from every major Islamic charity? How can we say this is not a "war" against Islam when the Moros (muslims) in the Philippines and the muslims in Indonesia support what the terrorists do? I believe that time will tell and that one fact is incontrovertible, a "war" cannot be won if you cannot identify the enemy.
During the second world war we were at war with Germany and Japan. Were their civilian populations responsible for the actions of their governments? Is it conceivable that the terrorists are as great a threat as Herr Hitler? Is it possible that the destruction of the WTC was as heinous as the attack on Pearl Harbor? Dresden was firebombed in retaliation for the firebombing of Coventry. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked because of the attack on December 7, 1941.
By the way, I agree that US foreign policy led to the attacks of Sept 11 just as US foreign policy led to the Japanese attack of December 7th.
I am NOT advocating a devestating attack on Afghanistan though Lybia, Syria, Palestine, Iran and Iraq may need to be removed from the "family of nations", at least to the degree that NAZI Germany and the Empire of Japan were.
Regards,
Paul Taggart
Re: Anti Anti-War
Dear Mr. Taggart,
Thanks for your e-mail. I think what you're missing is a nuanced understanding of Islam's diversity. "Islam" is huge and general, an umbrella term for myriad different beliefs.
There are people of the Sunni Muslim faith who are so modern and relatively secular that they can hardly be distinguished from much of mainline Christianity.
There are strict Wahhabist Muslims who believe in a literal interpreation of the Qu'ran, but would never endorse any form of suicide bombing or terrorist act.
There are Shiite Muslims who hate the Taliban for its extremely xenophobic and simplistic interpretation of the holy scriptures.
There are Arabs who don't believe in Islam, but live in Islamic countries - the Druze of Lebanon are a good example.
I mean - there's such a vast variance in faith that it's completely wrong to blame the entire faith of Islam for the terrorists we're wrestling with.
Certain governments, yes. Certain sects of Islam, sure, to varying degrees.
But a general-principle "kill 'em all" approach will bring us nothing but suffering and political disaster.
That said, thanks for your comments. Your point is well-taken - but I disagree with your interpretation of the necessary breadth and strength of the US response.
best regards,
Jim
10-01-01
To: James Norton
Re: Anti Anti-War
Dear James,
As we used to say, "Right On!" Someone had to point out that the Emperor protesters were naked.
Unable to reach out to the young and/or the working class all these years on any real basis, many on the left suddenly see the opportunity to replicate past triumphs by plugging a new situation into an old one, instead of dealing with the more complicated global issues that it should have been addressing more effectively all along. It doesn't work. While the Soviet Union was still Communist, they fought the Afghans, so going back to old models doesn't wash either. Hell, even Fidel was on our side in this one.
Self-hating Jews, Chomsky leap to mind, they certainly haven't gone over there to live among the oppressed Palestinians. They stay here for freedom, the high standard of living that permits intellectual activity, and, if my past experience is correct, in Chomsky's case, the chance to seduce impressionable coeds. May I point out that when he tried, thirty years ago, he was repulsive, and I imagine his success rate has only gone down in the intervening years. However, maybe he's hoping to reinstitute the sixties to get lucky.
So far, not one shot has been fired, and it's seventeen days later, so much for thoughtless retaliation. All we've been doing is arresting terrorists throughout the world. We've accused the Govt of being Big Brother, but so far, they seemed clueless and incompetent.
The left gave up the future a long time ago, probably never believed the world wouldn't be over by now. They let the right wing in this country define patriotism, although it can be argued that this is a country built on left wing principles. They left education to the right wing as well, allowing them to fund schools, censor textbooks, define history for our children. They tried to change the brand name, and started calling themselves "Progressives" but that didn't work.
As an old leftist, I admit to spending much of these intervening decades raising my own children, and fighting for education only on a limited, local basis. The need to get on with life after devoting years to politics was a stronger pull than protesting to empty rooms, although I have been writing on political matters for the last few years.
However, these are different times. The needs of workers, of building our society on a fair and equitable social basis with different priorities, including a different allocation of wealth is still here, stronger than ever. The left, in fighting for many assorted different, discreet, constituancy groups, and allowing people to define themselves according to their ethnic and sexual orientation as opposed to members of the working class, has allowed itself to be divided into easily chewed and spit out morsels.
If the alleged spokespeople of the "Left" persist in their knee jerk reactions, they are doing the working class a disservice, by discrediting the best of their ideas for years, finishing off the left in a hissy fit suicide.
... After reading the Nation, except for Christopher Hitchins, check out the New Republic, you'll feel better.
Beth
10-01-01
To: James Norton
Re: Anti Anti-War
Every since people first gathered together into hunter-gatherer groups there has been a simple rule. Peace comes to you when your enemies fear you. It's not a pleasant rule, but for hundreds of thousands of years it has been proven true and has never been proven false. If Gandhi had faced the Nazis instead of a civilized nation, he'd simply be one of the anonymous millions killed in the camps instead of a hero. In an age of CNN, MTV and the Internet, it's easy to believe that the rule no longer applies. Every time any society has come to believe that the rule no longer applies, it has created the potential for unspeakable grief, and in the vast majority of cases the society has directly experienced that grief.
Any people in any society who enjoy liberty do so at an expense — consider it a mortgage on freedom. Unfortunately and against our wishes, the only currency acceptable by our enemies to pay that mortgage is human blood poured on the ground in battlefields. You can postpone payments through readiness because when your enemies fear you, there will be peace. But readiness is expensive, and people forget the rule, and they want to use their resources on other things. So, every 30 years or so, another payment becomes due. It is horribly moral to pay in blood, so that more blood won't be spilled. Also, it is moral, though horribly, that if blood must be spilled because of our attackers that we make a point of insuring that the majority of the blood spilled is theirs. These are the unpleasant and inviolate truths of the world we live in.
This is the unrelenting truth of human civilization that pacifists, liberal arts majors and bleeding hearts in general have difficulty understanding, no matter how many little white crosses are erected to remind them. Don't get me wrong, I like pacifists, liberal arts majors and bleeding hearts and I wish they were right, but they're not. They think that if we did things differently people wouldn't hate us, and they're half right. If we did things differently, the people who hate us now wouldn't hate us, but others would. There are societies in this world that have liberty and we support them, there are societies in this world that do not provide liberty for their citizens and we hesitatingly even support some of them. Whatever your political persuasion, you could only make minor tweaks in our foreign policy. Given the choices we're offered, notwithstanding our continuous mistakes and hesitations, we do about as much as we can to promote what is right and good in the world. Churchill said "America will do what is right, once she has exhausted all other possibilities".
The inescapable fact is that there are people in the world who are worse than Dracula, Frankenstein, and Michael Myers all wrapped together and they hate us. They hate us because we're rich, or because we have influence, or because we have a secular government, or because we have half naked women on our TV commercials, they will find a reason to hate us. Once they hate us, they will begin to plot to kill us. Once that happens, we are left with no choice but to defend ourselves by bringing terrible and lethal consequences to those that have chosen to make themselves our enemies, because when your enemies fear you, you will have peace.
I read about a little girl who kissed her daddy goodbye in the morning before he went to work, he worked in one of the WTC towers. She doesn't understand why her daddy will never come home. That is the price you pay when your enemies don't fear you. That little girl depended on the federal government to take enough 19 year old men and make them warriors so that our enemies would fear us. Our government, military, our society and even our pacifists, liberal arts majors and bleeding hearts let that little girl down and cost her the life that she deserved with her father. Now, we must make another payment on our mortgage. That little girl tells us that we've waited too long and perhaps we must now pay penalties for being late.
This is a great country, and there are enough 19 year old men willing to pay for the liberty of the pacifists, liberal arts majors and bleeding hearts so they can lament about America's shortcomings and criticize them for doing what is necessary. We are right to demand punishment for those people who killed that little girl's father. We are right to make our enemies fear us again, so that your daughter can have the life she deserves with her father. The people who stand and hold signs protesting are exercising the very same liberty that we must continually pay for. They are exercising the liberty that was paid for previously by all the bloodletting that made our enemies fear us up until now.
With luck, the payment won't ask for your blood, or those protesters, but you have to ask yourself what will you do if it does?
Ryan Singer
10-01-01
To: James Norton
Re: Anti Anti-War
Dear Jim:
I agree wholeheartedly with your position as stated in the subject article — except for one detail. I disagree that the US fought on the right side in Kosovo. The war on Serbia was a criminal act in my humble opinion and should never have been waged. ... The government and media propaganda during the Serbian campaign would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. There are a few of us who can sift through the muck and see the truth.
By the way, I have no serbian ancestry — I just value truth. I support the war against murderous thugs worldwide. But the propagandists are at it again! Arafat is a terrorist — his followers use the same methods and have the same worldview as Al Queda — so why is he treated differently than bin Laden? The world is upside down and it will take brutal honesty (no matter the cost) in order to right it. Arafat — the original terrorist hijacker extrordinaire! Don't you find it just a little bit offensive that this man was given the Nobel Peace Prize? What a travesty! Right has become wrong and bad has become good!
Make no mistake — our enemy is radical islam wherever it is found worldwide — that includes Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Sudan, etc. etc. — KNOWN terrorist nations! Why are we asking them to be our allies?
Do we really want to win this war? Better question: Do we really have the moral courage to do it right?
Do you doubt for a moment that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of muslims worldwide are willing to kill Americans if called by their extremist leaders? I have no doubt. This is a battle of worldviews and the sooner we call it what it is, the faster we will be able to deal with it.
Islam is not a peaceful religion — I give you Nigeria, Sudan, Philippines, Kashmir, Algeria, Palestine as just a few examples of muslim violence against non-muslim peoples. The pattern is that muslims will colonize an area, and when their numbers reach sufficient strength, they begin their violent uprisings. This pattern has been repeated over and over throughout history.
Food for your thought.
Mark S. Fisher
USMC veteran
Re: Anti Anti-War
Mark,
Thanks for your e-mail. It's definitely one of the more lucid and informative I've received on this topic.
I happen to agree with you on the need for a military response, but I strongly disagree with your characterization of Islam. Just as Christianity has hundreds of different sects and degrees of observance, so does Islam — there are sects of Islam that are violent and poisonous, but most are peace loving (Sufiism, and mainstream Sunni believers, for example). Even within sects, there are, of course, varied personal interpretations.
The US needs to be very careful in terms of its response and rhetoric — we can't (and shouldn't) beat all of Islam into submission. We need to neutralize its most venomous tentacles. The best way is to cut off support from mainstream Islam for the violent sects.
best regards,
Jim
10-01-01
To: James Norton
Re: Anti Anti-War
there is nothing "brave" about being a quisling pacifist. these people are craven, despicable cowards, nothing else. In george orwell's words during the second world war, if they are not with us then they give aid, comfort, and encouragement to our enemies.
here's hoping the next terrorist attack on our sovereign soil is upon one of their craven marches.
laszlo d. lombardo
9-29-01
To: Clay Risen
Re: They Hate Us?
Dear Clay,
I enjoyed reading your 'They Hate Us?' article. It was well written and made a point that needed making.
There has been too much tawdry writing over the recent tragic events of 11 September. Moreover, here in Britain, I'm sickened when I hear the cry against any form of retaliation because, as 'they' say, it will mean the loss of innocent lives. While at the same time dismissing the innocent lives lost in the Trade Towers as merely "bond traders," "evil capitalists" or worse, "deserving" of the attack.
Those (like Sontag, Amis et al) who too quickly criticize their own democracy are in peril of losing their hard earned liberty.
Maybe a cliche but it's true.
Best wishes,
Paul Gallagher
Great Britain
9-29-01
To: Clay Risen
Re: They Hate Us?
Clay: I agree with some of your points. However, the cowardly congress and everyone else in government has jumped on Bush's bandwagon without a thought or discussion as to how much hatred is generated in the world by the actions of our collective US administrations over the last 50 years.
On one of the PBS programs (PBS has also jumped on the Bush bandwagon) I heard a government Terrorism Expert asked the question of why we are so hated world-wide. (I regret that I do not recall his name.) His answer: "Because we are so rich and successful and enjoy so much freedom". How ridiculous! He did not touch on our support of atrocities which have killed so many people throughout the world. How would you feel about the United States if you had been a Chilean citizen when Pinochet took over with CIA help, and your father had been thrown out of an airplane because of his political views. Would you have felt a bit of satisfaction — if not regarding the Trade Center bombing — but perhaps that of the Pentagon?
Your condemnation of Sontag, etc., gives support to this blind allegiance. What is needed is for more people of influence to ask, why?
The fact is that the left has no voice in the main stream media. The only ones who are being heard are the ones who have followed the rest of the sheep onto the bandwagon of this intellectual midget who parades as our president — this spoiled child who would be driving a truck for a living if he were not the son of a president. You know this, Clay. He never achieved anything without his Daddy's help. He is leading us in a very dangerous direction. Everyone writing for the press knows this, but no one has the integrity to say it.
It's wrong, and we'll pay a heavy price for it.
Gerry Long
9-04-01
To: James Norton
Re: The National Network
Sir, I am from Ottawa, Ontario but my family hails from the Ottawa Valley which is as dentally challenged [and a helluva lot whiter to boot] as the Deep South and I can tell you first hand that for folks up here the whole TNN has done gone to hell. There ain't even no more Grand Ole Opry. What is up with that? No Opry, why that is some serious bullshit. No, TNN is pale reflection of its proud days as the tractor pulling, country video and Nashville Now net.
Sadness.
Dan Shields
Ottawa
9-01-01
To: Dan Norton
Re: Hakama
Your review of hakama is an insult to Japanese culture and the martial arts. What you say in the article is completely incorrect. The hakama are not used in order to conceal feet movement, in fact ancient swordsman of Japan and most serious martial artist wear there [sic] hakama so that the bottom hangs no longer than the ankle. I dont think calling the hakama dope does it much good either. Also, hakama should not make you look like a "badass" either. I think I represent most of the japanese martial art trainees when i say that the hakama should be treated with respect, and only should be worn by someone who understands that, and what the hakama stand for. If you are tripping on youre [sic] hakama when walking up the stairs that just means they are too long, and you are wearing the incorrecty. I recommend erasing that article, beacuase i have found that many people are upset about it.
Re: Hakama
Me oh my. Perhaps I should have been more clear in the article, but it was intended to be humorous. But, that should not be an excuse for my statements.
Arguing about the length of the hakama is certainly valid. It may be mine are a bit too long. I've gotten better with the steps. I don't wear them to the point of being unacceptably long, I'm not talking about covering your feet or anything. Around ankle length is where I wear them too. However, when in any kind of lower posture, where your legs are bent, you will have your feet become covered. and if you have an even gait from that posture, bingo. Glide.
Hakama are dope. There is no argument here. Ditto on the badass. In terms of respect for the hakama, all I can say is that they are the only pants that I've ever written an article on to expound on its qualities. I've raised cultural awareness of hakama, and gotten the word out that they are great. Maybe it is time to ask yourself, what have YOU done for your hakama lately?
As for erasing the article,
no.
At any rate, thanks very much for reading, and thank you even more for reading, thinking and responding. It's really what we're all about at flak.
If you are interested in writing a full rebuttal article, "hakama revisited" or somesuch, feel free to send it through me or some of the editors. That would rule. Okay. Thanks again!
