Re: Alan Richs A
Sad Symphony With a Happy Ending [cover story, October 511]. Fabulous.
Should be printed on fliers and dropped from airplanes. I discovered (classical)
music when I was 15 or 16 years old. Ill be 75 in November. I have followed
it, chased it, loved it, drowned myself in it all these years. Like they say
about La Bohème, Not one note too many, not one note too short. Richs
article is, word for word, perfect. Thanks a million.
Enjoyed the Alan Rich article an in-depth, caring piece. Thanks for clearing the space for this type of comment.
Mr. Rich has done the performing arts quite a disservice by saying, apropos of Andrea Bocelli and others, that Some thing in the panorama of performance-arts audience passions is drawn to the physical or psychological anomaly that these misguided practitioners embody, and so tickets get sold. I dont have a problem with a critic not liking Andrea Bocelli from an artistic/ technical standpoint, but I do have a problem with Richs implication that the only reason he is allowed on the stage is because he is blind. I have seen Bocelli in concert many times and have heard him sing unamplified at the Kennedy Center, and in Detroit in Werther, on two occasions. Contrary to opera-house gossip, I have found him to be a breath of fresh air in a stale, boring, same-sounding genre.
DISUNITED, AS EVER
Re: Divided We Stand [October 511]. Thank you so much, Ella Taylor, for introducing the concept of nuanced critical thinking to our putative allies on the left, who have, with respect to the Middle East, lost the ability to distinguish attack dogs from underdogs. As the events of September 11 reinforce damage to an already struggling economy; as the airlines and other corporate entities position themselves to take advantage of Americas anguish at the expense of their employees and other average citizens; and as support for Israel, in its attempt to survive while surrounded by a sea of sworn enemies, is designated, with pernicious self-righteousness by some, as support for racism and as an explanation (if not an excuse) for terrorism, I fear that, once again, perhaps unconsciously and probably slowly, Jewish scapegoating will become defined not as an act of historic bigotry, but as a reasonable posture in the national interest.
Should the time, so often repeated, arrive when Jews are deemed problematic, and when an abandoned Israel has been driven into the sea, I have no doubt that the voices of my friends on the left will be raised on behalf of the Jewish oppressed. Perhaps they will even support the creation of a Jewish state.
Ella Taylor qualifies for the title Last Person With a Brain on the Left. Its also becoming very obvious that the left represented by the L.A. Weekly has nothing at all to do with mainstream liberalism, the left wing of the Democratic Party or much of anyone or anything else for that matter. If that left could come up with one sound and persuasive argument on how to eliminate terrorism without military action, someone might even listen.
Ella Taylor makes the all-too- familiar assertion that Israel is the lone practitioner of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. Yet she fails to acknowledge the fact that those governments in the region dominated by theocrats and feudal monarchs have been insidiously propped up and nurtured .by the U.S. the very practitioner of democracy and freedom throughout decades. Like the hawks in the Israeli government, Ms. Taylor manages to reveal her disdain for the left, and for the indignant Islamists (of course, in a more elusive and artful fashion).
"This is no time for unity on the left," says Ella Taylor. I shall never understand the moral hypocrisy of left Zionists. I wont engage any of Ms. Taylors arguments except one. She argues that the lefts backlash against Israel when it stole even more Palestinian land in 1967 ignored the fact that Israel was fighting for its life an argument fraught with much oversimplification and myth. The only Zionists with any claim to moral integrity were the bi-nationalists, who had their Arab counterparts. Unfortunately, they did not win the argument. And so the racist dream of an exclusively Jewish state (a state that Zionists actually claim is democratic) was allowed to go forward, the results of which Palestinians, Israelis and the world in general have suffered so deeply.
It is Israels total inability to generate good will among its neighbors, its racist condescension toward the people whose land and culture it brutally stole, that is at the root of so much of the pain in the Middle East. Now more than ever, we need to rid ourselves of the moral hypocrisy inherent in liberal Zionism. I agree with those Palestinians who prefer the honesty of right-wing Zionists. The region has enough hypocrites as it is.
Why does Ella Taylor think, as do so many others, that the true target of the terrorists was "democracy itself, as expressed in freedom of speech; the separation . . . of church and state; the guarantee of civil rights; the emancipation of women"? Where is the evidence for this? No one has yet spoken to the perpetrators some of whom are dead so we can only make assumptions.
Isnt it more logical to assume that Americas concrete actions and policies in the Muslim world our 10 years of economic sanctions that have destroyed the Iraqi middle class, our bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, our reflexive support of Israel are the real grievances of the terrorists? Taylor condemns this kind of thinking as "a crude sense of causality," but it is precisely in the area of causality that we need to favor facts over abstractions.
And while were making assumptions, lets assume the terrorists are as logical as we are. (Unless, of course, we want to persist in thinking of them as senseless madmen a very dangerous error indeed.) I can more readily understand perpetrating violence against the illegal occupiers of my land and their supporters than I can understand doing the same in response to their exercise of free speech.
LESSER EVILS, GREATER GOODS
In his Dissonance column [High on Infinity, September 28October 4], Marc Cooper starts out by claiming that Ariel Sharon has 17,000 Arab scalps from the Lebanon war. This ignores the fact that the scalps he refers to were mostly Lebanese killed by other Lebanese factions. He ignores that Palestinian terrorists had been constantly launching attacks on Israelis from Lebanon, including one episode where two dozen high school kids were killed.
Even worse, on the opposite page, in An Afghanistan Picture Show, William T. Vollmann praises the Afghanis for their atrocities against Soviets in retaliation. The Afghanis a non-Jewish, better yet Muslim people are praised for a bloodthirsty spirit of revenge that included maimings, slow deaths following disembowelings and other medieval tortures. Meanwhile, Cooper attacks Israel for taking out the terrorists leaders who have committed and were planning mass murder of Israelis with tactics and munitions designed to expose bystanders to as little harm as possible.
No sane government would tolerate what Israel has been subjected to without response. I myself would refuse to sacrifice the lives of my friends and family on the altar of Coopers bigotry.
Marc Cooper rails against American foreign policy, including our support of Israel and its policy of state-sponsored assassination. Is he referring to Israels policy of killing the leaders of terrorist groups who openly claim credit for terrorist acts committed against Israeli civilians? Would he be happier if they launched another full-scale invasion of Lebanon?
I hate to break the news to Cooper, but state-sponsored assassination, as he amorphously defines it, is exactly the business we should be in. Whats the difference between killing Osama bin Laden with a high-powered snipers rifle and killing Osama bin Laden by launching missiles from the deck of a Navy battleship? Civilian casualties. And limiting civilian casualties isnt simply good policy . . . its just plain good.
ITS HIS BAT
Re: Howard Blumes War and Power [October 511]. After Mr. Blume expends several paragraphs unsuccessfully trying to make the case that Osama bin Laden should be compared to a) the American Indian (the Indians will be thrilled to hear) and b) soldiers of the American Revolution, he further insults the readers intelligence by complaining that bin Laden has not played according to the operational handbook of the U.S. Army. One was left wondering what Blumes point really was that bin Laden should play by our rules, or that Bush should let the United Nations lead us into disaster, as Clinton did.
Battle Creek, Michigan
Re: Signifying Nothing [October 511]. So Steven Leigh Morris cant seem to find a unifying theme to Mamets work, beyond his mastery of language. I would suggest the same about Morris article, which seems to follow in the well-trodden footsteps of so many critics before him. Morris suggests that Mamets history of writing from opposing philosophies is a weakness, that his demand for timing is a cheap gimmick, that he essentially has nothing to say. The preposterous proposal that Mamets ability to argue from all sides diminishes his body of work is laughable. On close examination of what Morris is really saying, one recognizes that the Critic is the one who stands naked before us, and, unlike the author, the Critics only legacy is that of either praising or rebuking anothers work. Its Morris words, not Mamets, which truly signify nothing.
Get the Weekly Newsletter
Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.