Top 10 Letters

*1*
I just finished reading Stephen Schwartz’s article on Elfriede Jelinek, Oops, They Did It Again. Schwartz shows a kind of cultural arrogance that he–as an American–has no right whatsoever to show. In fact, culturally your country is the saddest creature that ever existed on this planet, I am sure you would not dare arguing that.

But nevertheless, I will offer you the honor of responding.

Schwartz’s way of argumentation is very shaky and naturally biased (not that this would surprise me in any way, after all we are in the United States), but in addition it follows a truly mono-causal path. As a matter of fact, his arguments and opinions are not well-founded at all: choosing a country and its history and applying all negative aspects that can be found herein to people of the present–living representatives of a modern nation more than 50 years after the incidents in the country’s history is just lame.

Let me give you an example: After slaying the entire population of American Indians and being proud of this brutal murder, what else would you expect of a nation but electing a president who marches into countries without any reason, destroying its infrastructure just out of stupidity. Needless to say, that this president is not elected by the people but enthroned by the media (yes, You!), which he practically owns.

My dear Mr. Schwartz, we don’t want to talk about your country and its history when we talk about the cultural value of any of your fellow Americans, do we? Without any doubt, culture is based in Europe and numerous attempts to create any form of it in the United States have already failed.

Be humble, watch and learn how culture is done where it is at home.

–Andreas Rapp

*2*
As an Austrian living in the United States, I feel somewhat like a cultural ambassador for my county, and would like to react to Stephen Schwartz’s article about Elfride Jelinek. I have the impression that he has never read any of her works.

Her book “Lust” is NOT porn–it is a cynical parody of a porn, protesting the comercialization of sexuality. One of the leading Austrian conservatives said that despite disagreements with her, he likes her stance against irresponsible sexuality because it is a “major conservative agenda.” Jelinek is the ANTI-Britney Spears! I have read the book, and it is not erotically arousing at all, it is in fact difficult to read due to Jelinek’s intense experimental language.

The Nobel prize in literature is awarded by a Swedish institution and not by U.S. conservatives. This is why it is highly respected internationally.

–Klaus Stiefel

*3*
As a liberal and a Jew (a New York one even), who plans to vote enthusiastically for Kerry I have a few comments regarding Joel Engel’s article From Me to Jews. First, Engel make some good points and I agree that Sharpton and Moore should be rebuked when they make outrageous claims. However, Engel dramatically over-emphasize their stature in the Democratic party. First, Sharpton was a side show and, rightly or wrongly, people let him get away with his theatrics (which were sometimes quite witty actually). As for Moore, he’s not a Democrat or part of the party, so associating him as such as silly.

On more substantive matters, Kerry is the person American Jews will be voting for, not the “party.” He has gone out of his way to take a firm stance in support of Israel, to the point that it’s almost impossible to distinguish between his positions and Bush’s. Also, Joe Lieberman is campaigning heartily for him because he knows this to be true. Finally, Jews in America have always been socially progressive and we vote for Democrats because the GOP has been hijacked by religious extremists who are more interested in denying gay rights than in working for social equality. The infatuation the right has with Israel is part political calculation and partly due to the apocalyptic sentiments of the religious right who see Israel as the center of the Second Coming, so don’t oversell it.

–Jason Scorse

*4*
I just want to say that Joel Engel nailed it on the head about the Jewish vote. It infuriates me to see these people act only on past customs, voting as their parents did and not on the reality around them. I am a practicing Catholic, and support George W. Bush fully in his moral stands. He might not always be right on every issue, but at least on moral clarity he is decisive. I say that if you have voted for someone for 50 years and you are no farther ahead, wouldn’t you at least try the other side. Again, no common sense. I wish you could make this article available to all Americans so that they could see the irony in what is going on. The far left’s immoral, win at any cost attitude is taking over. This is a sad, sad, commentary on our times.

–Blake Armstrong

*5*
In his recent article Bad Advice, Jonathan V. Last once again seems to miss the point! How can you compare scrapping the Electoral College, with scrapping the separation of church and state? One is trying to empower all who choose to vote, “one man one vote.” The other is trying to use the Bible instead of the constitution to govern our nation. The way things are set up now, neither a Democrat in Texas nor a Republican in New York have any reason to exercise their right to vote on November 2nd. I’ll meet you half way on this one. If you can guarantee the separation of church and state will remain in our government, I have no problem with keeping the Electoral College as is. Even though it really makes no sense. I have a feeling President Bush will once again win the Electoral College, yet will lose the popular vote by an even larger margin then he did the last time around. Hopefully our Republic won’t drift further apart than it already has. One last question, if this divide in our country took hold and you had to choose where you would live, a red state or a blue state, where would you find yourself?

–Jason Kooch

*6*
Kudos to the Hugh Hewitt who had the guts to stand up for stay-at-home Moms in his piece Mama T on Moms. I am 54 years old. I gave up a lucrative job to stay home with my first born, and then had a second child. We were on the verge of the poverty, and yes, more money would have been nice. The job I gave up could have put me in a place financially, letting me retire instead of working until I’m past 65. However, I would not trade one minute of the time of 24/7 that I spent raising my children without a housekeeper, a nanny, or even an occasional babysitter (you see I quite my job so there was NO extra money) to help me.

I raised two girls on my own for years after my husband decided it was his choice to be single. Yes, I had to go back to earning money and couldn’t take care of my girls myself 24/7 (fortunately they were in the public school system by then), but I never took help from services that I qualified for because I knew my girls needed pride in themselves and in their Mother who earned her own way. Both being a stay-at-home and a working Mom was very gratifying! You see, both contribute to their community.

When I ask a woman about her life, I always ask “Do you work outside the home?” You see, I worked harder “at home,” raising my children, than 8 to 5 on the job. On the job, you get bathroom breaks (you even get to go by yourself), lunch breaks (you don’t even have to serve everyone else and then eat quickly and clean up the mess) and you get to have adult conversations with co-workers. Still, I would take the harder job of raising my children over a paying job that took me away from them!

So Mrs. Kerry, think about what is more important? Nurturing children, our most precious gift from God, into strong, intelligent, caring adults, or gaining status in the public eye or business world? I vote for raising children whenever possible.

–Katherine Faw

*7*
I would just like to say that I am a stay-at-home mother of four little girls, ages 6, 7, 8, and 13. I was very offended by what Mrs. Heinz Kerry thought of mothers and our great first lady. Let Mrs. Heinz Kerry come stay in my house for just one day. She would see that all mothers have the hardest job, but also a most rewarding one.

To mothers everywhere, God bless us all!

–Teri Powell

*8*
Does William Kristol dare accuse Kerry of playing loose with the facts (Holbrooke: I Don’t Know the Truth) when Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers based on manufactured intelligence and propaganda on par with that of the Red Scare? Have you no shame?

–Christian Breiding

*9*
William Kristol’s coverage of the 2004 campaign in The Weekly Standard is always insightful. I, however, disagree with his statement at the end of the article. Kristol said it was Kerry’s willingness to use charges that could not be confirmed as true that was important. The fact that the United Nations, the New York Times, and CBS were complicit is equally important because without them, Kerry would never have done this on his own.

It is their duplicity that has allowed Kerry to become a viable candidate. Without the help of the MSM, Kerry wouldn’t be neck in neck with a dogcatcher let alone the President of the United States.

–C. Benson

*10*
I have enjoyed William Kristol’s columns, and his commentary on television for years. While I haven’t always agreed with him, I’ve appreciated his thoughtful and considered arguments. I would like to let him know that as a registered Democrat, and third generation resident of New York City, he is my hero, and a hero of this republic.

–Pamela Medina