Letters for November 21, 2002

Bravos for new American music

Re “Notes from the Underground” by Jackson Griffith (SN&R Cover, November 7) :

Thank you for your wonderful article on the Festival of New American Music. Its annual opening at the Sterling Hotel is always the highlight of my musical calendar, as are the concerts and master’s classes on the campus of CSUS. I have never been disappointed.

Festival directors Daniel Kennedy and Stephen Blumberg are to be applauded for bringing the great young talents of the new American music field to our community. It is by listening to the unique sounds created by some of the best avant-garde musicians in the field that one learns to appreciate new generations.

As an avid classical-music buff, it is always a refreshing encounter with the new that keeps me listening and learning, my senses challenged and open to new possibilities.

Patricia D’Alessandro
via e-mail

Democracy for dummies

Re “Cartoon” (SN&R Opinion, November 7):

I enjoy SN&R. You provide a refreshing slant to the local journalistic scene. I have a small quibble with Kloss’ recent editorial cartoon, however.

It makes the point that voting is a waste of time—that if your vote could actually change things, an unnamed but powerful “they” would quickly take the vote away from Americans and that, therefore, it is useless to vote.

This cynical attitude is the fruit of ignorance. The litany of kiss-offs for American democracy are familiar: “They are all a bunch of crooks,” “Never trust a politician,” etc. These people know and cherish recent scandals that support their opinions, but then change the subject if the discussions threaten to go beyond their comfort zones.

It is maddening to attempt an exchange of ideas with people who are convinced that the motives of others are dishonorable. Of course, we have some ghastly politicians. We have some pretty good ones, too. Vote for the good ones, work to defeat the lousy ones. It’s democracy, like it or not.

Ed Donaghy
Fair Oaks

Criticism sans politics, please

Re “Bowling for Columbine” by Jim Lane (SN&R Clips, October 31):

American political discourse is at a sorrowfully low level these days. Candidates appear mostly in paid-for commercial spots on TV; Governor Davis refused to debate Green candidate Peter Camejo, ostensibly because third-party candidates can’t be taken seriously; and, this week, Republicans derisively nicknamed Nancy Pelosi the “San Francisco Latte Liberal.” These shallow approaches do nothing to elevate our national discussion. But, unfortunately, they do succeed in marginalizing and stifling progressive ideas.

Of course, we’ve come to expect much from SN&R, and we usually get it. For example, Bites’ recent analysis of Davis’ first term in office was full of important information and ideas, especially compared with a San Francisco Chronicle editorial this week on the same topic. Keep up the good work! Readers trust SN&R as a paper that’s not controlled by corporate interests (we can see that from all of those tacky porno ads!).

However, even SN&R sometimes falls into irresponsible stereotyping. This time, it’s in a brief review of Michael Moore’s controversial movie Bowling for Columbine.

Reviewer Jim Lane writes that the movie is “surely calculated to warm the hearts of European intellectuals and college freshman in full I-hate-America bloom.” Wow, what a mouthful! The statement implies that once those college freshmen grow a little older and wiser, they will be more tolerant of our government’s military and economic misdeeds.

But what about all of those European intellectuals he mentions? Are they immature compared with American intellectuals? Maybe that’s why they get such huge turnouts for anti-war marches in Europe. Or maybe those Europeans and other foreigners are just angrier than we are about U.S. policies because they’re not from here. And those young America-hating college freshmen will soon grow up and realize that it’s not appropriate to criticize our own government so passionately.

My advice to this writer: If one paragraph is not enough space for him to state his political opinion clearly and honestly, maybe he should leave his own politics out of the review.

My advice to SN&R: Your paper strikes me as the perfect forum for the much-needed public debate between the progressive left and the centrist democrats. Let’s have that debate with integrity and respect, by using facts and substantive ideas, not meaningless stereotypes.

Victoria Hawes
Sacramento