To the Daily:
It is with extreme disgust that I must take pen to paper and write this letter, and say what by far will be considered improper by my peers. None the less it must be stated that those soldiers who were captured in Yugoslavia and are presently prisoners should not receive our sympathy.
As a nation we must withstand the carefully planned attempts by the media and the government to use this situation as a tool to inspire hatred in the American people. You see there is a secret that the government, the media, those who we trust to tell the truth do not want us to know.
In a democracy to really fight a war effectively you need to hate your opponent, and if that hate does not exist it must be created. Three soldiers being taken prisoner is a part of war, a sad part, but none the less a part of war. What we are in now is a war and if as a nation we do not feel the cause is worth this price then we should pull out of this war.
But if we feel that it is right, then we must straighten our backs, harden our hearts and accept that people from our own communities will pay the price with their lives for that cause. But false sentimentality about how "our boys" have been captured is the wrong response to this situation - they are neither boys nor worthy of sympathy.
They are soldiers, trained professional murderers, for war is one nation sanctioning the killing of another nations population. Merely because our nation authorizes this does not make those pulling the triggers exempt from the crime of murder, it simply means that we will not punish them for it. It is time for us as a nation to bow our heads and continue on with our war not merely for vengeance because three soldiers from our armed forces were taken prisoner. To wage war and destroy another nation and another people is the ultimate act one nation can carry out; do not condone it being done merely for vengeance.
I am sad that once again this nation has plunged into war, but I believe the cause is worthy, worthy enough I would trade my life to end what is happening in Serbia. But I will not condone this nation going to war merely for revenge because we have lost soldiers as POWs. Oh, and one more thing, do not listen to the news when they talk about the Geneva convention. The United States has ignored that treaty for years on most counts and most nations no longer follow it. It is only trotted out when a country wants to cloak their war in false nobility.
Edward Chusid
LSA senior
To the Daily:
In his April 5 review ("'Get Shorty' sequel 'Be Cool' falls short"), Matthew Barrett completely missed the point of Elmore Leonard's most recent book, "Be Cool." While at the most rudimentary level the book is indeed about a thug turned movie producer turned music agent, a more sensitive reading reveals that in this book Leonard is talking to the audience about the experience of being an author.
When the protagonist, Chili Palmer, is asked how he writes a plot, he responds that "You find some fascinating characters, and let them tell you the story." This is not merely filler text, but Leonard talking to his fans and students about the act of writing.
Nearly everyone in the book who discovers that Palmer is making a movie immediately asks, "Can I be in it?" Surely Leonard is doing more than wasting text by including these constant nagging inquiries. He's talking to people in his own life - fans who continually whine for mention in one of his books. It's meaningful to note the none of the "cool" people in the book ever ask to be in the movie; they are characters in their own right and don't need special attention. They get roles because of who they are - not from whom they ask for favors.
Leonard airs a lot of laundry in "Be Cool," and it astonishes me that Barrett missed all of it. Chili provides a voice for Leonard to talk about not just his creative process, but also the movie industry. Two of Leonard's books have been produced on the big screen. The first, "Get Shorty" was a success because it left the plot and dialogue (Leonard's trademarks) mostly intact. The second, "Rum Punch" which was renamed "Jackie Brown" and significantly rewritten by Quentin Tarentino, flopped at the theatre. I have to wonder how Barrett missed this key point when he glazed over the fact that the protagonist has had a hit "Get Shorty" and a flop "Get Lost," and is now working on a third. For the volume of text that Leonard spends lambasting screenwriters, the educated reader has to look for some meaning or intent more subtle than lack of artistic ability. There is a message to Tarentino and others who would "improve" a successful book for the big screen: don't.
In short, the connections to the real world in "Be Cool" are too many and too obvious to be mere coincidence. I have been waiting for a reviewer in the popular press to pick up on these obvious parallels, but to my knowledge, none has. Even Rolling Stone merely spent a column whining about inaccuracies in the portrayal of the music industry. I had hoped that a review by the Daily might be more substantial than a generic "soda-pop" summary, but I guess that I was wrong. "Be Cool" is a fascinatingly postmodern book that not only allows the author a pulpit to talk about his trade, but also serves as a fine example of mystery/action fiction.
Christopher Dwan
Rackham
To the Daily:
Branden Sanz's April 6 column ("Meat - It's not just for breakfast anymore") was so ripe with ignorance, erroneous information and poorly conceived justifications for eating meat that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that he is a carnivore (he is, in fact, an omnivore), the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of eating animals.
Sanz first justifies his meat consumption by appealing to a simplistic notion of his "role in the food chain." He does not, however, explain why he believes his role as a human is similar to that of the carnivorous tiger and not the vegetarian gorilla.
While I agree that Carol Adams responded somewhat poorly when asked to justify her belief that eating meat is morally wrong, it does not follow that no such justifications exist. When one examines the ramifications of supporting the meat industry by consuming animal products, a preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that meat eating has profound moral implications.
Is Sanz aware of the demands his preference for meat places on fossil fuels, water, topsoil and forest destruction when compared with a vegan diet? Is he familiar with the living and dying conditions experienced in factory farms by the animals he eats? Doubtful.
When it comes to his claims that eating meat will allow him to have a "healthy, active lifestyle," whereas vegetarianism would make him frail or weak, there is simply too much data to show that the exact opposite is true. Part of the myth perpetuated by the meat industry is that eating animals is invigorating, healthy and essential. These are lies.
Humans can and do easily meet their dietary needs eating a vegan diet. Further, medical studies show that meat eaters have dramatically higher incidences of cancer, heart attack, heart disease and many other illnesses. Never mind the high levels of growth hormone, antibiotics and pesticides we consume if we choose to eat animals.
I suggest Sanz read two excellent books to augment his knowledge of animal consumption: "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins, and "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer. Somehow I doubt he will read them. Ignorant ranting is much easier than well considered writing.
Jack Tocco
LSA junior
04-09-99
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |