 |
No blow?
While I can certainly understand the impetus for the “America Blows” article (News and Features, June 29), I found it short-sighted. First of all, throughout the history of this country (most of which is pre-Bush), it was the dedication and hard work of immigrants that created our culture. Many of our contributions to the worlds of art, music, science, and culture were made by immigrants.
In fact, it was a German (and unfortunately a former Nazi officer) who enabled one of our greatest feats as a country: landing a man on the moon. The author of the article even mentioned a number of classic rock (again, pre-Bush) songs about America written by foreigners. Clearly, if America blows under Bush because of our lack of a “meaningful” contribution to culture, it has always blown.
Second, one has to wonder why so many talented foreigners come here. Sure, a part of it is probably that more money is available. However, I believe it is more than that. True artistic and athletic success has always been measured as excelling in the American market. Our market, throughout the 20th century and even into the 21st, defines global success. As the world shrinks and new markets have opened up around the globe, it is still America to which the most talented emigrate. How can that be if, as you say, “America blows”?
Sonia Chawla
Brighton
Raising discourse
I would like to thank you for your piece on Professor Andrew J. Bacevich (“Bacevich’s War,” News and Features, July 6). Bacevich was my advisor in undergraduate study at Boston University, as well as a mentor.
While my opinion is hardly objective, I believe you have done the professor justice by your piece. You have succinctly explained Bacevich’s arguments in The New American Militarism and his greater philosophy about American foreign policy and the use of violent force to achieve an end. Most important, you have captured the general essence of Bacevich’s personality: short but fair, gruff but encouraging, serious but oftentimes funny in an off-handed way, confident but slightly self-deprecating.
The professor’s critics of late have sometimes had their merits but I’ve often found them to be partisan, close-minded, and viciously brutal. Whether or not folks agree with his politics or political philosophy, he has always been keen on self-criticism and review.
What has happened to his family is horrible and, like you said, is incredibly bitter and ironic. Yet what you have done is vitally important and timely: you have helped to raise the level of discourse to a point where respect and sensitivity for the man and his family can occur.
Chris J. Glassanos
Washington, Dc
Unseen gem
Ed Siegel’s review of Slings and Arrows (“Backstage Masterpiece,” Arts and Entertainment, July 6) gives the best series on television its due. Unfortunately, this program did not get the viewing audience it deserved, but it would be interesting to see how popular it might have been if it had been widely publicized.
Such terrific acting and writing give faith to those of us who believe television can offer great things. Though there are rumors of a possible fourth season, I think we should all savor this gem and appreciate how the writers gave us three of Shakespeare’s ages: Hamlet (youth), Macbeth (middle age), and Lear (old age and death).
Thanks to our friends from the north for sending this to us, and thanks to Ed Siegel for recognizing it.
Robert Franklin
Belmont
Cogito, ergo cynical
I don’t think most of us are as cynical as one would believe when it comes to our political figures. (See “Mitt Gets a Posse,” TJI, June 29) We’d like to hope, to find something, anything, credible in each of them. Surely a significant number of us would withhold portions of our criticism of Mr. Romney’s political ventures if there were but traces of sincerity and vision in his rotating roles. But please, the rest of the Republic can now glimpse a weird gestalt, a twisted notion of Descartes, “I’m Mitt, therefore I am.”
Jeffery Mcnary
Cambridge
