I cannot tell you how truly great it makes me feel that Mr. Ken Edelstein is finally paying attention to the world ("2001: Culture after the massacre," Dec. 26). He is a writer, yes? Funny, I thought paying attention to the world was his job.
I particularly like the way he is compelled to constantly use the term "we" to describe a nation of people who have been wakened from their social vacations. Speak for yourself, Kenny. Some of us don't need to have our nation attacked to see the world around us.
Personally, I couldn't care less how the Sept. 11 attacks will resonate in the arts. What I care about is how it will affect the people of this earth and how we will interact with each other, help each other, and trust or distrust each other in the future. But for someone still coping with Glitter's awful stench in the air, I guess any start is a good start for you.
Yet the underlying theme in your whole column seems to be that a nation of people unified against a common cause poses a threat to what the '60s helped accomplish. Conforming together against the most vile threat we've faced in the last 50 years would really be a crime, wouldn't it? I guess that would wreck your parade. Not only is it political suicide to suggest that our own actions may have created this mess -- it is also a lie. Unless you mean electing as our president the only buffoon who had his head higher in the clouds more in 1994 than you do now.
Do us all a favor, Kenny. Just go back and play in your room with the other children. Or put your head back up Naomi Wallace's bum while she worries about the fate that might await a terrorist in the path of a B-52 and its "cargo of death." Your first attempt into the current world's political forum has been a gigantic failure and there are others who have a much keener sense of things without littering the pages with stupid suggestions and annoying statements on how they perceive the world.
And for God's sake, if you decide to read anything, stick to Mother Goose and lay off the Noam Chomksy books. It's obvious you've read far too many of those already.
-- Auburn Rea, Atlanta
With the eyes to see
Ken Edelstein's piece ("Culture After The Massacre," Dec. 26) draws some compelling parallels with events that shaped American culture in the '50s. However, an obvious asymmetry between the 1950s and the present is our increasingly dire global ecological/environmental crisis. Let us hope that our newfound attention directed toward "the outside world" shall also broaden itself to the concrete world beneath our feet.
It is a testament to the techno-stupidity of our age that socioeconomic policy is considered autonomous relative to environmental impact. Our ultimately fragile infrastructure we take so much for granted, though, obviously supervenes on the natural infrastructures of the troposphere and biosphere.
In the early '90s, global warming was considered by many as somewhat of a hypothetical and theoretical issue. Now, this winter has been the warmest on record, rampant droughts and deforestation from the Okefenokee to New Hampshire ravage our regional climate, just to name a few examples "found in our own backyard."
A popular novel in the 1950s was Albert Camus' The Plague. A natural catastrophe topples the illusory edifice of a complex urban culture, with its contradictory and indirect engagement to the outside world. But Camus' message interlaces reason to hope with the tragedy: Only those with the eyes to see nature clearly can contribute in any useful way toward the hope of eventually creating a saner culture.
-- William Kallfelz, Clarkesville
Dangerous point of view
I am writing this to let you know what I thought about this year, from my POV. I will tell you what I think about your year-end issue and the stories that you have.
First off, I am against anything that MARTA would do to hurt people like me by taking away my right to ride because of the fact that I am forbidden to drive.
Second, I am very disappointed that Mr. Bostock has not tried the foods at Midtown Place -- especially the new Qdoba, the new Seattle's Best at Borders Books and the 3-in-1, otherwise known as Dunkin' Donuts, Baskin Robbins and Togo's.
Thirdly, I was very hurt that Danger Woman was NOT mentioned much at all this year and that is NOT right.
But, I want the readers to know that Danger Woman did avenge Blue Blazer and that it was NOT the lawyers who did it, it was Danger Woman who did it!
She even got to do a LIVE album for Eyedrum called "A Farewell To Trinity," which is her way of saying goodbye to the old location on Trinity Avenue and looks forward to performing in the new place on MLK Drive in the coming year.
At Dragon*Con, she got to see her old teacher from Superhero School, got to celebrate her birthday and the fans got the birthday presents.
But the best thing that she has had was her Holiday Hero appearance at the Star Bar for the USMC Toys For Tots benefit. She got to present her toys to them and she got to sing three songs.
At least her holiday season was the best ever!
Well, I must go now. I hope this will fill in the blanks and may be more than enough to mention in your next issue. Have a safe and sane 2002!
-- Elizabeth S. Goodrich, Atlanta
(aka, Danger Woman)
No pity for illegals
The recent "Postcards from the Edge" (News, Dec. 26) was extremely disappointing. Illegal Mexicans are nothing more than common criminals, breaking U.S. laws by sneaking across international borders and then securing jobs with false identification papers. So what if they cannot get food stamps or loans? Why should they reap the benefits of a nation whose laws they hold in contempt? Everyone must follow the rules of law; if these individuals want out of Mexico they can apply for work visas in the U.S. like all other law-abiding immigrants all over the world who come to our great nation every day. Why should Mexicans get better treatment than, say, Ethiopians or Russians who want the chance for a better life?
If you really wanted to do an article about the effects of the economy on those most deserving of our pity, you should have written about the thousands of widows, widowers and children who have to go to bed each night sad, lonely and poorer because they lost loved ones in the recent terrorist attacks. Those are the people who deserve our pity, not the sneaky illegal aliens who live and work here and who have no patriotism toward our great nation, just a desire for more money. Disgusting.
-- Jack Franco Handmacher, Norcross
(In response to John Sugg's Fishwrapper column): It is sufficiently rare that one sees evidence of honest, thoughtful observation -- or true wit -- in our local or national media, that I feel moved to praise and hopefully encourage more of it when I see it.
I believe your column -- and the general tone Creative Loafing has taken since your arrival as senior editor -- are establishing CL as a singular, deeply needed voice in the local media. These remarks aren't meant to fawn, but rather to give deserved "props" to both your point of view and practice of covering topics thoroughly and deeply. There is a crying need for anger-in-print regarding the political climate today -- I'm grateful to you (along with Jeff Berry and even Andisheh Nouraee, a great personal favorite!) for providing it without losing your humor in the process. Lest you think me blindly complimentary, there are several other voices in your paper I neither like nor respect, but my purpose here is to keep it upbeat.
Unlike most who pose as "liberal," but who in reality serve as pseudo-props moving "discussions" further to the right, I find many of your articles pure, wonderfully inflammatory and bold. I must tell you how much I respect your courage and hope you maintain it.
-- Robert Rife, Atlanta