FROM THE SEVENTIES TO THE UH-OHSIt was incisive of your analyst, "The Nose," to dismiss Ralph Nader as a man "stuck in the politics of the '70s" [WW, July 28, 2004]. I recall that in the '70s Democrats opposed sending our kids to occupy foreign countries, because they noticed that folks do not like to be occupied, and our kids were getting killed.
Back in the '70s, people who had a job could live on what they made. Nader is so retro that he points out that the buying power of the American wage earner peaked in 1973, and nearly all the growth in the economy since then has landed in the lap of the rich. How '70s of Ralph to disapprove!
In the '70s, the Democratic Party was a stronghold of workers, intellectuals and active minorities, joined in their desire for justice at home and abroad. Our more modern Democratic Party believes that peace is "off message," that the defense budget is sacrosanct, that workers should consider themselves lucky if they get a token increase in the minimum wage, and that the Party exists for the singular purpose of raising an endless stream of money in order to bombard the citizenry with 30-second snips of calculated emptiness.
I remember the '70s. It was a time when serious people urged others to put a shoulder to the wheel and make the world a better place. We are wiser now. Now we silence by ridicule and threat any who would invoke a vision of peace or justice. We know to choose only from what is offered. And we have learned the great lesson of our times, that speaking the truth will only make things worse.
Gregory Kafoury
Nader Oregon campaign manager
STUCK IN THE BUSH SHOW
Scott Amos of Gresham chided your reviewer David Walker for urging everyone to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and said he didn't expect to see equal-time coverage of various conservative documentaries [Mailbox, July 21, 2004].
Let me put it this way, Mr. Amos. Your pet political sawhorses will gross more than $100 million in ticket sales--as Moore's latest has done in less than four weeks--when (A) they are made by filmmakers with a proven track record; (B) they feature a little charm and wit (i.e., they ENTERTAIN); and (C) they don't merely parrot a comforting government party line.
Why should we care if "Michael Moore hates America" or heartwarming stories are trotted out in America's Heart and Soul? What's far more important is we have been saddled with a president who received hundreds of thousands fewer votes than his opponent, yet has sent hundreds of American kids off to die in a war for mendacious reasons and possibly unattainable goals.
We have no choice about whether or not to pay for his show.
David Loftus
Northwest Hoyt Street
Editor's Note: Loftus moonlights as a backup copy editor for WW.
.nar.jpg)
That reviewer was just showing off. My friend was a restaurant reviewer in New York and he says it is much easier to write negative reviews than positive ones, because you get caught in the trap of trying to appear better, snobbier, smarter, and more cynical than your readers. The reviewer's job should be serving the readers, not serving himself.
What the readers want is 3 Doors Down. That's why you have to wait for a table on Saturday