Letters to the Editor 

Evilest man alive?

Re: "The kinder, gentler Satanist" (Metro Times, Oct. 25), I found this article rather well-written and not at all biased. Even if the author is a Christian and found the topic of interest, she didn't impose her own immediate interpretation of Satanism onto it. The mainstream Christian community continues to maintain the Hollywood mythos that Satan is this big, ugly horned being that is bent on ruining human life. From an open-minded perspective, I see Christianity as a wonderful philosophical perspective. Shamefully it is burdened with a large fundamentalist following. Behind Satanism, there is just that, but those are in the minority. The majority of Satanists are open-minded and flexible. I find it shameful that anyone could condemn any individual for pursuing an alternative philosophy online, especially one that condemns ignorance, corruption and hatred.

For the uninitiated, Satanism does not promote murder, rape, drug use or anything else seen as "evil" by the general populace. To the contrary, Satanists are law-abiding citizens. And the majority of Satanists are not your gothic-dressed "lost souls" rebelling against the norm. They are individuals who sought an answer to life, to find their niche in Satanism. I suppose that if that is considered "evil," than I must be the evilest man alive. —Eric Schuetz, Falls City, Neb.


Wrong about taxes

In his column "What they aren't talking about" (Metro Times, Oct. 25), Jack Lessenberry writes: "The state needs to raise taxes." Please: We are competing against 49 other states. Our economy is in a Big Three-driven depression. The only way to pull out is for a more diversified economy with many new entrepreneurs creating new jobs for our citizens. The days of the Big Three paying for everything are over and will never return. Raising taxes will just put us in a deeper death spiral and discourage new investment that could create new jobs for people like Dee's son.

The party is over; it was a hell of a bash that lasted 80 years or so. Now we need to enter a new competitive world and being a high tax state will only keep us depressed for years to come. I've got two teenage sons. I would like them to stay in Michigan but I fear I will be visiting them elsewhere in the future if our state's economic model does not have a radical change.

Good luck to Gina and Dee and God bless. —Ed Lewan, Royal Oak


Too Green for their good

I read with interest Curt Guyette's article, "Greens Come Knocking" (Metro Times, Oct. 25). I have several issues with the so-called Green Party. 1) Why is it called a Green Party when "green" (read "environment") is not the only issue it pushes? 2) The party's overall platform is very similar to that of the Democratic Party, therefore, for many voters, the two parties are distinct without being different. 3) Since the Greens' agenda is very similar to that of the Democratic Party, they tend to take away votes from the Democratic candidate and help the Republican candidate win. To me, that's counterproductive, if not totally imprudent, unless the secret agenda of the Green Party is to help Republicans snatch elections away from Democrats! 4) If the real problem is Democrats failing to unify behind any coherent plan, then the answer to the problem is hidden in the problem statement itself and the answer is: Democrats need to get behind a coherent agenda that will resonate with the voters and focus like a laser beam to sell their ideas to them in a disciplined, convincing and consistent manner unrelentingly, issues like illegal immigration, broken borders, free but unfair trade, loss of manufacturing jobs, poor health care, stagnant wages and a government in bed with lobbyists and corporations.

It's time the Green Party stopped being too green for their own good. Politics is for people who have seasoned, mature judgment, based on pragmatism, realism, and common sense, not for people who are merely starry-eyed idealists! —Pradeep Srivastava, Detroit


Let us eat cake

Re: Michael Hastings' review of Marie Antoinette (Cinema, Metro Times, Oct. 25), though I think the film was flawed, don't you think it's possible that what Sofia Coppola has done here is to hold up a mirror to the audience: the slumbering, insulated Americans who flock to the movies to distract themselves from confronting the downward spiral of our culture into a mindless mob that only wants bread and circuses? There isn't a single character in the film who shows any signs of self-awareness or awareness of others. They are all involved in one long drunken party to keep them distracted from the coming revolution. The leadership meanwhile is involved in an overseas revolution in order to show the world it's still a dominant world power. They just don't get it. Does it sound familiar? I thought the baby-blue high-tops were a hint for those in the audience who failed to see their own reflection in the film. —Jennifer Willis, Cape Elizabeth, Maine


Eastwood goes south

Jim McFarlin: Although I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, and enjoyed his last two films, Flags of our Fathers (Cinema, Metro Times, Oct. 25) is an exceptionally weak film. Moreover, I'm inclined to like any film that pokes holes in major American myths. Still, I'm amazed how predisposed critics are to laud Eastwood films based solely on his track record without evaluating each individually.

This film has very little going for it save Eastwood as director. The acting is consistently unremarkable and mostly sleep-inducing, the writing is mediocre, the story is overnarrated and heavy-handed, relies heavily on stereotypes, and is supported by Eastwood's unbelievably insipid score. This story would have made a great hourlong documentary, but, as a feature film, the story is just not that interesting.

Meanwhile, the majority of your review extols the virtues of "A-list Hollywood talent." I, too, saw it expecting something deep, heavy and important. Sadly, this movie is totally forgettable. It's the critics like you, Jim, that are saving this film from near-oblivion. So, please let's all try and go easy on the cult of some these directors. I think it's a function of our collective desperation. —Mark Ajluni, Bloomfield Hills

Send letters (250 words or less, please) to letters@metrotimes.com. Please include your telephone number for verification. We reserve the right to edit for length, clarity and libel.

We welcome readers to submit letters regarding articles and content in Detroit Metro Times. Letters should be a minimum of 150 words, refer to content that has appeared on Detroit Metro Times, and must include the writer's full name, address, and phone number for verification purposes. No attachments will be considered. Writers of letters selected for publication will be notified via email. Letters may be edited and shortened for space.

Email us at letters@metrotimes.com.

Support Local Journalism.
Join the Detroit Metro Times Press Club

Local journalism is information. Information is power. And we believe everyone deserves access to accurate independent coverage of their community and state. Our readers helped us continue this coverage in 2020, and we are so grateful for the support.

Help us keep this coverage going in 2021. Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing membership pledge, your support goes to local-based reporting from our small but mighty team.

Join the Metro Times Press Club for as little as $5 a month.

Read the Digital Print Issue

December 1, 2021

View more issues


Never miss a beat

Sign Up Now

Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.

Best Things to Do In Detroit

© 2021 Detroit Metro Times - Contact Us

Website powered by Foundation