Pro-Bush stories untold
Isn’t it funny that none of the top 10 or any other story mentioned was in favor of Bush, the war, etc. (“See no lethal,” Metro Times, Sept. 14)? The fact that you guys are trying to tell us that not all the stories have been shared, yet fail to show us anything in favor of Bush, the war, etc. (or anything opposing your magazine’s views) seems a bit hypocritical to me. I know of several stories that support Bush, the war, etc. but didn’t quite make the mainstream media (and as far as I can tell, everything in the mainstream media, with the exception of Fox News, pretty much is in line with your views), and yet somehow that news didn’t make this article either. How does that work? Or could it be that you’re guilty of what you call “censorship”? — A. Grande Baliad, Detroit, [email protected]
Tomorrow, Tomorrow ...
I have heard that This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow will no longer be published within Metro Times. As a huge fan and avid reader of your publication, I would at the very least implore you to reconsider. This Modern World provides a kind of intelligent satire/commentary that is second to none. I firmly believe there is a strong possibility that every so often a staunch conservative comes across your publication and when confronted with the weekly offering of This Modern World, they may in fact come to some sort of self-realization (if only for a moment), that group-think is deconstructive and the moral attributes many conservatives pride themselves on are being grossly manipulated by those they endear on the right.
Within your publication I find no shortage of engrossing articles, advice and stories. Much of that which you publish (regarding politics) more or less preaches to the choir (which I by all means embrace time and again), yet Tom Tomorrow’s cartoon effectively accomplishes the same, with far fewer paragraphs.
I remember the first time I ever picked up the Metro Times. I was sitting at a bar watching something mindless on TV. Without having ever read This Modern World before, I found myself awakened, with both a new interest and perspective.
Imagine how many times a day a conservative, or someone who’s apathetic, does the same? Look at the opportunity you have to reach them — to awaken them.
I know that your publication exists as an alternative to redundant pre-packaged corporate fanfare in the interest of getting the news to the people. Please do not underestimate your impact or the great disservice to which you would subject the public at large, should you omit This Modern World. —Beau Dietz, Redford, [email protected]
There’s no Tomorrow
Can’t believe you’re not going to be carrying Tom Tomorrow anymore. Why not? It’s probably one of the most politically insightful, hard-hitting commentaries out there. And more importantly, one of my favorites. I wish you would reconsider. — Randall Streicher, Troy, [email protected]
Blogs that bind
I wanted to write you because the piece you did on the folks at SOTI/DirectNIC.com was just wonderful (“Blogging through disaster,” Metro Times, Sept. 7). You were balanced in how Michael Barnett has been viewed by some in the blog world. I, for one, applaud his thinking, and his ability to write a decent piece of news coverage for being someone who was not seeking to become a household name. Some have accused him of being narcissistic, but really those complaints probably came from someone like myself safely tucked away in the Midwest where the tornado season is pretty much over, and all we have to worry about is how cold the winter ahead will be this year and gas prices. Not sure why else I am writing you, but just wanted to say thanks for doing a piece on him — and being an alternative newspaper. This Internet thing really does seem to pull people together in these times of national tragedy like nothing else before it. The ability to communicate and respond goes far beyond what radio and television are capable of doing. —Tony Patterson Indianapolis, IN, [email protected]
Compassion is compassion
The purpose of the latest PETA exhibit was not to compare humans to animals (“On barbecues & lynchings,” Metro Times, Sept. 7). It was to show the parallels between human and animal suffering and to remind people that at one time the exploitation and maltreatment of certain people was accepted, even though, in retrospect, we can all agree that it was completely unethical. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about comparing human and (other) animal suffering. Animals feel pain (physical, emotional and psychological) just like people do. I have been a nurse for over 25 years and have devoted my life to helping people. When I see someone in pain or discomfort it’s my instinct to try to alleviate that pain. That is the reason I became a nurse and it is also the reason I became vegetarian. I had always loved animals and rescued many cats, dogs, and birds. In the ’80s I saw The Animals Film by Victor Schonfeld and Myriam Alaux. In it, the horrors of factory farming, stockyard and slaughterhouse abuse and animal experimentation were exposed. I became a vegetarian overnight and have remained one since. Many members of my mother’s extended family (who weren’t lucky enough to escape from Europe in time) were killed in the Holocaust. When I read about PETA’s “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign, I was not offended by the comparisons. In my opinion, there are parallels we cannot deny. Suffering is suffering. Compassion is compassion. People need to evolve and to start to look outside their little cubicles and begin to develop compassion and respect for all forms of life. Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, George Bernard Shaw, Isaac Bashevis Singer and Alice Walker also promoted this concept.
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it best: “The question is not: ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” —Rina Deych, Brooklyn, NY, [email protected]
Send comments to [email protected]
