Letters to the Editor

TOM FOOLERY

I have heard some glib, shallow, uninformed, and downright silly arguments both for and against a war with Iraq, but Tom Robbins' "analysis" has the distinction of combining ignorance with repugnance ["War or Peace?" March 5]. Pimple-faced, adolescent America's strongest supporter against Saddam Hussein's regime has been the country with the longest continuous government and a genuine member of "old" Europe, Great Britain. A case of grande dame crankiness, perhaps? No, I'm afraid there are more complexities in the world than exist in Robbins' philosophy.

As to his wish to see the U.S. get its comeuppance yet not to see Americans die, I can only respond with a baffled "How?" Witty put-downs and obscene gestures? Oh, those stupid Belgians! If only they had dropped their pants and pointed their arses at the kaiser's bullying troops, millions would've been spared the slaughter of the War to End All Wars. One can legitimately oppose on moral grounds a war against Iraq, but to then desire the humiliation of the U.S. when such a punishing lesson can only be accomplished through the death and maiming of Americans is hypocritical. "Butt-kicking" and "thrashing" are just euphemisms for the violence of war.

Creative types (celebrity and otherwise) may be the unacknowledged legislators of the world, but they shouldn't take that as license to make a shameful, fatuous spectacle of themselves.

Brian Lannutti
Seattle

PAT'S TORTURED LOGIC

I doubt that Pat Buchanan could be counted upon to be much of an asset to the anti-war movement [Mossback, "Right Wing to the Rescue," March 5]. On his TV show, he jumped on the bandwagon endorsing torture as long as it was for a "good reason," of course, in order to "save lives."

Buchanan is what is known as "the loyal opposition," which means the phony opposition. He has taken the conservative patriot types for suckers over and over, and even now, few of them have caught on to him. Do you think he would jeopardize his lucrative contract with MSNBC? No, and he would not be on the air unless the network had absolute confidence that once Bush unleashes his killing machine upon the defenseless Iraqis, good old Pat will put his past criticisms of our foreign policy behind him and cheer on his fearless commander in chief. No deviation from the party line is to be tolerated by the controlled media, even by former darlings and TV stars of the liberal establishment such as Phil Donahue, who came out on the right side of this issue and got canned.

Gary Giuffr鍊
Bellville, TX

ANTI-WAR SUVS?

"Axles of You-Know-What"what a great article [Spring Books: "Dubya Is for War," March 5]. I see all sorts of anti-war signs in people's yards, and SUVs in their driveways. I have no idea how people in a relatively well-educated city like Seattle can still get away with driving SUVs with their conscience intact. Personal comfort is a good thingI wouldn't disagree with that, or even the feeling of "safety" that people who drive these things think they havebut to blatantly drive such gas guzzlers at a time like this seems like a narcissistic act of ignorance. (But aren't those big RVs environmental campaigners drive just as bad? Hmm??) If you drive an SUV, you should also be able to point out where Venezuela is on the map and be a major contributor to the survival of Alaskan wildlife.

Chandira Hensey
Seattle

THE REICH STUFF

Thanks to Tim Appelo for the most profound, disturbing, and analytical cinematic criticism I've read in the pages of the Seattle Weekly for a decade ["Adolf the Aesthete," March 5]. Brilliant. Appelo's argument against Claude Lanzmann's viewpoint that representing the Holocaust in art is immoral is well made. There's an emotional tyranny on behalf of victims that holds some subjects and themes unsuitable for art. It is the artist's task to push the boundaries of "decency." Censorship is a merit badge for the artist. To show Hitler as neither monster nor cartoon, but to humanize him, is the right and duty of these filmmakers and is not immoral. However, the Holocaust was not art. To call it art (even the art of a lunatic) is inaccurate. The meaning of our common language does not support it. If we reach the point where we can behold the Holocaust itself as art, then the concept of the word "art" ceases to have meaning or relevance in the language.

Michael Hacker
Seattle

GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER

Someone once said that you should never pick a fight with someone who orders ink by the barrel. In over 25 years of directing and producing, I have obeyed that warning. But Roger Downey's grossly inaccurate and venal attack on me, ACT, its board of directors, and many other arts organizations in town compels me to break this rule ["Dream Weavers," Feb. 26].

Downey gets so many things wrong, I hardly know where to begin. But let me limit my comments to things about which I have direct and personal knowledge. He claims that "most of it [productions at ACT] cost three or four times as much as it earned." Wrong. ACT's average production budget during my tenure was $300,000 from soup to nuts. Its average subscription revenue divided evenly among six mainstage shows was about $240,000, and the average single ticket sales per show was somewhere slightly above $60,000. We can all do the math. Downey's claim is both irresponsible and incorrect. He is so off base, in fact, that I wonder if Roger has cooked up his "facts" to support his thesis.