Top 10 Letters
Moby, stadium-seat theaters, "The People's University of Michigan," and more.
11:00 PM, Jan 26, 2003
THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.
I am a C4/5 quadriplegic (electric wheelchair with joystick control) who frequents movie theaters. Stadium seating is a wonderful innovation, and it has enhanced my movie-going experience. Given a choice, I prefer theaters that offer stadium-style seating (Jonathan V. Last, ADA Goes to the Movies).
The Trial Lawyer Association's support of Clinton assured his support of any suit that would line the pockets of his lawyer cronies. It is disheartening that the Justice Department under President Bush would have kept the suit against AMC alive. It is shameful that this administration's Justice Department pursued the suit against AMC with vigor.
I apologize to AMC for the trouble brought upon them under the guise of the ADA. Ostensibly, the Justice Department is fighting for me, a card-carrying member of the severely disabled community; however, in this case they do not speak for me or for anyone I know.
This mess was all so utterly predictable (Fred Barnes, Blix Tricks). Indeed it was predicted publicly, by Vice President Cheney and others. The blame should not fall to the U.N./E.U. weasels or Colin Powell. George W. Bush is commander-in-chief, and it his dithering which has gotten us here.
By the way. Has anyone from the administration uttered the "zero tolerance" standard recently?
I am glad someone in the media can really describe the horror we are living in Venezuela right now (Thor L. Halvorssen, Horror in Venezuela).
I never thought that I would be preparing--along with my family and neighbors--for invasions at our houses. Now I know that in my house there are guns, where they are and how to use them.
I had to send my only son to the United States (since he a US citizen) and I wasn't able to tell him when he is coming back, or when I will be able to see him again.
But I am fine--I am much better than the thousands of Venezuelan that don't have a job and that have no income to support their families. And that is why the worst is yet to come. The sad part is that we are prepared for it.
Who's to blame? I am not sure. I think the strike is very hurtful for the whole country, but without it, international entities would have not paid any attention to us.
Please keep writing and informing the world what is really happening in Venezuela.
--Maria Alejandra Azar
Someone should inform Moby that there is a difference between peace-loving, and peace-making (David Skinner, Stardumb: Moby). Peace-making sometimes requires a confrontational approach when the person who is being approached is recalcitrant and uncooperative.
Stephen F. Hayes makes two points in The Peacemongers: (1) some peace activists are stupid; (2) their actions help prop up the Iraqi regime, which oppresses the Iraqi people.
Even if we accept that both points are true, neither is a justification for invading Iraq. Hayes's article seems to imply that improving the lives of Iraqis would be a reason to go to war. This is naive.
There is an infinite amount of suffering in the world. The billions of dollars the U.S. would spend on an Iraq war could better the lives of millions of people in the third world without costing a single human life.
Of course, donating money to fight poverty would not topple a dictatorship and end repression. But there are repressive governments throughout the world and the United States is not trying to topple them all. The United States is not going to war to end the repression of the Iraqi people. The Bush administration describes Iraq first and foremost as a security threat, not a humanitarian project. A more cynical observer would say the war is about oil.
Yes, it's possible that war might improve the lives of Iraqis. It's also likely that thousands of Iraqi civilians would be killed in a war and it's possible that the post-Iraq government would be repressive, too. It will be hard to explain to orphans and widows how killing their husbands and fathers served the purpose of freeing them from political oppression.