Summer’s Hottest Superhero
Adrenaline rushed through my veins as I read your cover article on “Spider-Man 2” (“Along Came Spidey,” June 28). I am ready for a new adventure. I was not very impressed by the first movie, but as I emerged into adolescence I could relate Peter Parker’s story to many of my peers’ tales. The uncertainty, the love that can’t be expressed and the mischief in the eyes of antagonists are what one would see in a middle or high school. Most people want to see a superhero who can defeat any bad guy, destroy evil and wipe away hatred from the face of the earth. But Spider-Man is a nerd who gets superhuman powers overnight. He is an average person facing choices of whether to care for the well-being of others or to fulfill his own needs. Spider-Man is not just Peter Parker but every one of us. Danish Zaidi Edinboro, Pa.
In a sidebar to your “Spider-Man 2” article, you provide a list of the most evil madmen of recent movies (“Bad to the Bone: A Sampler”). Among them are four James Bond villains, including second-raters such as Max Zorin and Scaramanga. How can you not include Auric Goldfinger, arguably Bond’s greatest foe? Not only did he come up with a scheme for world domination (destroy the U.S. gold reserve at Fort Knox to increase the value of his own), but he has one of the greatest film lines I’ve ever heard. Bond: “Do you expect me to talk?” Goldfinger: “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!” Raymon Gonzales Lubbock, Texas
In a week that saw the execution of American contractor Paul Johnson and the first private spaceflight, I was baffled to see “Spider-Man 2” make the cover of your June 28 issue. I guess I expected more from a magazine with “news” in its title. Your decision not only to use your cover as a billboard to promote a movie and a book (Bill Clinton’s “My Life”) but to devote 16 percent of the nonadvertising pages to the film is as ludicrous as my need to renew my Entertainment Weekly subscription. Apparently, your magazine will get the job done just fine. Zach Baze Merriam, Kans.
Every time your magazine has the temerity to feature on its cover something that is remotely entertaining, you publish letters from outraged people who believe that devoting space to things like fun, laughter and frivolity should come to a screeching halt as long as there is suffering in the world. But I would like to thank you for serving up a variety of topics that people are talking about–whether those are politics, war or movies like “Spider-Man 2.” It may be hard for some to believe, but even in our post-9/11 world people still talk about television shows and go to the movies. Thank you for your balanced view of our world. Doug Hess Richmond, Va.
I was surprised to learn of the dangerous stunts Tobey Maguire did for “Spider-Man 2.” In the 40 years I spent working in Hollywood as an entertainment publicist, everything dangerous was done by well-paid stunt people, not by the extremely valuable and comparatively fragile stars. I’m even more surprised–no, astonished–that in this digital age, with computer-aided design figures able to do things even stunt folk consider too dangerous, the star of a major film would be put in jeopardy. David Kramer Las Vegas, Nev.
‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Generates Heat
As a lifelong Republican, I was skeptical of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” but I went to see it anyway, expecting a healthy dose of over-the-top banter between Michael Moore and hapless interviewees in government, in the popular press and at large (“Agent Provocateur,” June 28). What I saw, however, was a compelling assembly of facts and testimony taken directly from our nation’s collective experiences and a clear indictment of our government’s behavior before and since the 9/11 tragedy. When you consider all of it, you can only conclude that the Bush administration and its benefactors have clearly manipulated the fears of Americans for the benefit of their own private interests. When history is written, we will look back at this presidency and we will be ashamed for what happened and that we were too complacent and trusting to notice. Thank you, Michael Moore, for waking us up. Robert White Tracy, Calif.
It was very sad to see an American citizen being applauded in Cannes–by a foreign crowd, in a foreign country–for criticizing his own country and his president. Is Michael Moore so conceited and naive as to think that the crowd was solely applauding the film’s artistic merits? It is amazing to see that those who fight and die for America are diminished and even forgotten, but those who seem to hate it receive admiration and also get rich. Only in America. Samuel Rieber Caracas, Venezuela
My daughter and I recently saw Michael Moore’s new film, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” One image left a lasting impression on us: the heroic Michigan mom whose soldier son died in Iraq. If nothing else, her experience should move us to do more to preserve our rights to dissent and to have a voice in the decisions made by our government. The take-home message of this movie is clear. Our democracy depends on a government that is beholden to the American people. Crying outside the White House, Moore’s Michigan mom is a true American patriot. We owe it to her to think long and hard about where our nation is going. Carole Stivers Palo Alto, Calif.
After hearing about all the vicious attacks, I was surprised to find how moderate “Fahrenheit 9/11” is. The movie will make you laugh out loud in parts and weep in others, but it is never less than thought-provoking. We must assume that every interviewee is telling the truth, or he or she would be sued faster than lightning. Frankly, any person who, for the love of his country, is prepared to go through reams of documents, travel all over to get interviews and expose himself to public hatred and derision deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Molly D. Shannon Austin, Texas
I call on my fellow Americans to show their support for our country by boycotting “Fahrenheit 9/11.” This anti-American propaganda is a shameful attempt to discredit President Bush, our brave military and the war on terror. With free speech comes great responsibility. While Michael Moore is protected under the Constitution and is free to spew his hate-filled invective and lies, he is not protected from the reaction of the public. “Fahrenheit 9/11” crosses the line of free speech, placing all of us in danger by emboldening our enemies abroad. Americans should speak out against this movie with their wallets: boycott it and those theaters that choose to run it. Jon Alvarez Baldwinsville, N.Y.
Aiming for Balance… Or Not?
I was slightly amused by Robert J. Samuelson’s contention that the liberal Democratic counterpart to the likes of the Fox News Channel and right-wing talk radio is NPR and “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” (“Picking Sides for the News,” June 28). For one thing, the former make no serious attempt at balance and go straight for the gut. They play to the prejudices and fears of their audience in an attempt to pump up ratings. Public radio and television, on the other hand, consistently strive to achieve balance as part of their public mandate. They present serious coverage and thoughtful analysis of the news from both liberal and conservative perspectives. Perhaps the appropriate metaphor to describe the contrast between the two is that whereas the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly dish up junk food, public broadcasting offers a balanced diet. Unfortunately, for too many Americans cheeseburgers trump broccoli every time. Jack Pickard Atlanta, Ga.
The Pew Research survey really describes a noticeable erosion in the nonpartisan nature of reporting. Robert J. Samuelson did an excellent job explaining the incentives driving this polarization. However, I think he failed to give full merit to another trend found in the numbers he cited. The audience for NPR was split almost evenly across conservatives, liberals and moderates. “The NewsHour” also indicated a fairly balanced audience. It is noteworthy that the only “news” programs bucking the trend are those that put quality ahead of the pursuit of market share. I would bet that the audiences for NPR and “The NewsHour” are growing at rates that rival or exceed those of the top-performing media outlets. It makes you wonder if all those marketing gurus who are driving the news to be flashier and edgier are missing what the public is truly craving: quality. Chris Decker Ashburn, Va.
Excuse me if I don’t get all choked up over Robert J. Samuelson’s concern that “people are increasingly picking their media on the basis of partisanship.” It wasn’t so long ago that conservatives had no choice but to watch one of the liberal network-news programs in order to keep up with current events. Now that we conservatives finally have a choice, Samuelson voices his concern. He’s afraid the ideas of fairness and objectivity will silently erode. When did the liberal mainstream media ever worry about fairness and objectivity? Could Samuelson’s concern be based on the increasing number of us who are watching the Fox News Channel and listening to conservative radio programs? Kent Whitaker Cadiz, Ky.
Young and in the Big Leagues
The real tragedy in the rush of high-school basketball players to turn professional (“Fast Break to the Big Time,” June 28) is that many young African-Americans, not just elite athletes, are brainwashed into thinking that the way to a better life is through sports and not through education. The likelihood of obtaining a professional contract in the NBA is no better than the odds of winning the lottery. Capitalizing on a short-lived career in professional sports is very risky business at best, especially considering that one’s chances of becoming an engineer, a doctor, an educator or a lawyer are statistically much greater. Unless this message gets through, we will continue to see the escalation of academic underperformance in our inner-city schools. At that point the rush to go pro will become a full-fledged stampede. Bruce B. Svare, Director National Institute for Sports Reform Selkirk, N.Y.
A Tangle of Medical Forms
I just read Doug Garr’s My Turn essay on the jungle of paperwork related to medical care (“Sick, and Tired of the Endless Paperwork,” June 21). I am naive enough to be optimistic that someone somewhere will say, “He’s right! Let’s fix this!” In 2001 my husband had a biopsy done on his prostate, and a few months later I began a series of examinations and tests that led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. We are both intelligent people who are not afraid of numbers, but we had spreadsheets all over the kitchen table as we tried to determine whether we or our insurance companies had been billed more than once for any particular thing and whether payments had been properly credited. The system we have is completely nonsensical. Garr’s description of his good experience with France’s billing system, as well as his mention that our own Medicare system spends only three to four cents of every dollar on paperwork and processing, simply rub salt into the wound. There are much better systems out there, but we’re stuck with the mess we have unless we make enough noise to bring about a change. Let’s all start yelling! Anna Maynard Charlottesville, Va.
Corrections
In “The Trouble With E-Ballots” (June 28) we identified Avi Rubin as a researcher at the University of Maryland. He is a professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University.
In “Charity Fund-racing” (Tip Sheet, June 28) we stated the wrong date for the Marine Corps Marathon. It is Oct. 31.
