I’m the mother of four young children, and your article “My Culture at the Crossroads” (ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT, Oct. 9) hit me right in the solar plexus. When your guest writer Kevin Powell speaks of rap-music videos pumping “visual crack into the minds of young people across the planet” and rap artists screaming hateful violence for “global consumption, with no regard for who is inhaling those sentiments,” I am struck by how immensely vulnerable all our children are. While musicians and writers in any era will always express their own agendas, the media corporations are responsible for filtering and peddling their products to the susceptible masses we call our children. Parents: rise up and love your children enough to guide their choices. Fight this sensory drug war! Jennifer Frangos Conroe, Texas
I love folk, blues, jazz, rock, country, Broadway and classical music. However, I think the phrase “rap music” has replaced “jumbo shrimp” as the ultimate oxymoron. Perhaps calling it street poetry would make sense, but to call it music is to refuse to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes. My test of a good song is as follows: six months after it is popular, can you sing, or write down, most of the lyrics when you hear the melody? With rap you would have trouble finding anything that resembles a melody, and no one can remember the lyrics a week after hearing them. Perhaps that’s just as well, considering their disturbing content, including a complete lack of accountability and consequences for antisocial and criminal behavior. Philip Barnett Scottsdale, Ariz.
You’re comparing Eminem to Elvis (“Same Old Song,” ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT, Oct. 9)? Please. It’s one thing to rhapsodize about being a hunka hunka burning love; quite another to “move the ball forward by collapsing both parents into a single Bad Mommy to be raped and murdered.” Certainly each generation has the right to push music’s boundaries, but are hate, misogyny and violence the best that this one can muster? Why are we celebrating (and paying) the artists who glorify societal ills that most of us are desperate to cure? Rick Broida Colorado Springs, Colo.
When a song comes on the radio or TV that I don’t like, I just “Back My Azz Up” to the remote and change the station or channel. Too many people sit back and criticize the music when all they have to do is stop listening. I’m a 17-year-old Caucasian male, and while I do not listen to rap music, I have nothing against it. However, I do think that those who are criticizing the music are just wasting their time trying to cause a controversy. The music will always change, and if the phase it’s in right now doesn’t please you, don’t listen. It’s that easy. Benjamin Brinkman Cottage Grove, Minn.
I did not understand why this music is called “rap” until someone told me that the word begins with a silent “c.” Now I understand. Ray Barrier Luray, Va.
The most distressing aspect of your article on rap music was that you thought it was important enough to warrant a cover spread and 11 pages of text. A “musical” genre whose “artists” are best known for being violently antisocial and misogynistic, who glorify criminal behavior and wallow in obscene and racist lyrics may not be easy to ignore, but why legitimize their behavior by articles like this? Smut chanted by obnoxious sociopaths does not constitute music or art. Their form of expression exemplifies the very worst in our society, and I, for one, am thoroughly sick of it. If they want to exist in a cultural gutter of their own choosing, fine, but must we be forced to participate as well? Surely there are more important issues to command our attention than this scum. Louis Walker Houston, Texas
Society is a bizarre animal. it craves the unexpected, yet it loathes the unrestrained. Regardless of how outrageous it may be, I believe that rap music is a form of art. Often it carries a message that is not appropriate for most children. However, the more its aging opponents discuss Eminem and his appalling lyrics, the more America’s youth will long to hear his music. The entire controversy revolves around First Amendment rights. Thus, no rapper should be stifled. It is the role of the parents to explain to their children that the music is merely that–music. That is, it’s entertainment, not serious advice. As a 15-year-old, I know kids will listen to their parents. They just want something in return: empathy. Nicholas Angello Bonita, Calif.
I’d like to thank Kevin Powell for his article in the Oct. 9 NEWSWEEK. As a black woman and the mother of an impressionable 13-year-old boy, I find it both disturbing and hurtful to hear the garbage being heaped upon him in the form of “music.” The often captivating (and sometimes even original) instrumentals that are part of the rap songs are entirely ruined by pathetic, godless young mouths without minds, “talented” in spewing forth what I’ve long recognized as self-disrespect in the guise of empowerment. (How could any self-respecting black person think that changing the spelling to “nigga” could change the terrible connotation of the slur it’s based on?) I like the rhythms of rap, just not what the lyrics project. But it all sounds good to the kids, for what better life could there be than livin’ large with fast money, cars, jewelry and loose women–right? What a future! Cathy Kirkland Wrightstown, N.J.
As a 17-year-old white kid from the suburbs, I am hardly an authority on rap. I do know enough, however, to be offended by your cover story about it. The report was another attempt by middle-aged America to fit urban culture into a box, as condescending and misguided as calling rock and roll the music of the Devil. Moreover, the suggestion that “hard-core” rap faces an imminent demise is ludicrous. Although there is a place in hip-hop for positive thinking, taking the “street life” out of rap would be like removing unrequited love from the blues. Asher Ross West Hartford, Conn.
Exit Milosevic I read your informative article “Slobo’s Endgame” (INTERNATIONAL, Oct. 9) with great interest. I can’t help wondering why it took the Serbian people so long to get rid of their dictator, Slobodan Milosevic. He never played by the rules, but created his own. Among them were his deadly, deeply inhumane policies of “ethnic cleansing” that he tried to apply to almost every corner of the former Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia, quo vadis? Hopefully to a better, more peaceful future that will allow the troubled region to come to terms with itself and its sad past. But keep in mind that the era of Milosevic will come to a real end only if the indicted war criminal is brought to trial in The Hague, the Parliament attains a majority dominated by Milosevic’s opponents and Serbia apologizes to the international community for the wars and crimes it supported. Until these requirements are met, sanctions against Yugoslavia should be upheld. Lars Straeter Dortmund, Germany
Sydney: Shame and Glory I was both elated and appalled by the actions of the U.S. men’s 4 x 100 relay team at the Sydney Olympics (“Breaking the Tape,” SOCIETY, Oct. 9). Elated because they were truly the best team and they won. And appalled because of their post race, half-nude victory dance during which they did everything with an American flag except burn it. Jon Drummond tried to justify his actions by stating that he had never won an Olympic gold medal before. But most of the gold medalists in Sydney had never won gold medals before, either, and they didn’t strip to their skin and disrespect their nation’s flag and national anthem. No wonder we have the image abroad of being “ugly Americans.” The regrettable part about it is that these actions are often televised and viewed by children, many of whom may continue the cycle of “ugly Americanism” on the field, court or track. Mike Glaze Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
How sad that anyone thinks the Olympics are overproduced. At 85, I never miss the Games and feel privileged to be able to see and hear the great camaraderie of many nations joining together in peace. Winning or losing, the great sportsmanship is a joy to watch. Shame on those who belittle the prime-time shows. Thank you, NBC! Lois P. Hale Orange City, Fla.
In your article “The Real Olympics” you mention that weight lifter Karnam Malleswari is the first Indian woman to win an individual medal. Olympic medals for India come few and far between, but I am a satisfied Indian, because these medals have been achieved through individual brilliance and not as the result of a highly organized sports system in the country that I am so very proud of! Ameya Bhobe Mumbai, India
A Furor Over RU-486 The abortion pill RU-486 gives new meaning to the phrase “drugs kill” (“The Abortion Pill,” NATIONAL AFFAIRS, Oct. 9). And it’s approved by the FDA. All drugs, like steroids, amphetamines and barbiturates, have a classification. As the first drug approved by the FDA to terminate the origin of human life, what classification should this drug be placed in? Substances used to kill unwanted plants, fungi and insects are called pesticides. Because RU-486 targets human life, I believe its proper classification would be homicide. Gerald L. Trzebiatowski Amherst Junction, Wis.
So now a woman can have an abortion in her own home and simply get on with her life. I’m amazed that even the most radically pro-choice advocate could be so callous as to think that this might actually happen. Maryanne Dumas Holbrook, N.Y.
Unfortunately, anything remotely associated with induced abortion in our country is first and foremost a political issue. But we need to move away from the polarized notions of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and move toward a model that is pro public health. The approval of RU-486 allows women the option of a safe and necessary medical procedure. This prescription drug allows abortions to take place earlier than surgical abortions, and earlier abortions are usually safer abortions. If women’s health is an important issue in our country, RU-486 is a positive step in granting equal access to needed care for all American women. Rebecca McCoy Ann Arbor, Mich.
To many people, the availability of abortion and RU-486 does not mean increased freedom for women, but further oppression. If RU-486 makes abortion easier, the responsibility for an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy becomes more than ever the woman’s burden, with men taking less and less–if any–responsibility for their actions before and after conception. This may be why, according to some polls, more men than women are pro-choice. Kelly MacGrady Tallahassee, Fla.
If a man were to kill his (or any) unborn child by putting RU-486 in a pregnant woman’s drink, would he be charged with murder? I fervently hope so. It would certainly seem the appropriate charge for someone who takes the life of a mother’s unborn child. Sadly, I fear that the legal charge would not be murder. Perhaps it would be interfering with a woman’s constitutional right to self-determination. With a sentence of maybe three to six months? Jonathan Davis Lebanon, Pa.
Quindlen: A New Choice Anna Quindlen claims to know the true motives of opponents to RU-486: she says they oppose the pill because “it is an exercise in self-determination for the woman who chooses to use it.” But then Quindlen states that no one knows what is in the hearts or minds of potential RU-486 users. Quindlen does not favor us with an explanation of how the “hearts and minds” of her philosophical opponents can be discerned with such certainty, while anyone else’s conscience is a mystery. The truth is that people who oppose RU-486 do so simply because it facilitates the killing of unborn children. Harold J. Flanagan New Orleans, La.
Anna Quindlen’s treatment of the recent FDA approval of Mifeprex, or RU-486, is the most intelligent that I have read to date. As a medical student, I often have the opportunity to speak candidly with physicians who were in practice before Roe v. Wade was enacted. Because I have listened to their horror stories of what all too often happened to women seeking illegal abortions in those days, I know that Quindlen is right when she asserts that the real choice we have in this country is between safe, legal abortion and a return to the back alleys. While the right to choose has been protected by the Supreme Court, the court is not able to protect women and medical personnel from the dehumanizing harassment they must endure each time they walk through the doors of a clinic. The promise of Mifeprex is that some women will now be able to avoid this ordeal and carry out the weighty decision to end a pregnancy with the privacy and dignity that they deserve. Mifeprex will not completely solve the problems of anti-choice intimidation and lack of access to abortion. It is a step in the right direction, however, leading to the day when every citizen, lawmaker and doctor will recognize each woman as a moral agent capable of weighing decisions for herself. Sarah E. Bork St. Louis, Mo.
I was disappointed to read yet another abortion article in which the author negates the pro-life viewpoint by saying that decisions about unwanted pregnancies are “none of your business.” Why doesn’t NEWSWEEK spend more time investigating and reporting on our culture and the reasons that abortions are so voluminous? Let’s analyze and curb unwanted pregnancy as a mutual objective. Articles such as Anna Quindlen’s only stoke the fires–but then, maybe it’s none of my business. Lynden J. Wenger Alpharetta, Ga.
Anna Quindlen is a voice of reason in the overheated debate over abortion. Her statement that “the pill that would best serve all our interests is the one that prevents conception, not causes abortion” goes right to the heart of the matter. Millions of dollars and thousands of lives (born and unborn) would be saved if birth-control services were covered by all health-care plans, including Medicaid. Carol C. Brown Northfield, Mass.
Anna Quindlen’s column touts the issue of control: women having control of their bodies and the right to choose abortion. Her answer to the abortion debate is having birth-control services covered by all health-care plans. Why not go one step further and promote self-control? This would eliminate any medical risks and alleviate any financial burden on taxpayers. Wanda Jarchow Luverne, Minn.
The federal government protects, under penalty of law, the life of the bald eagle, spotted owl and gray wolf–but sanctions partial-birth abortions and the FDA- approved abortifacient RU-486. Isn’t something wrong with this picture? Bill Momeno St. Charles, Mo.
A Key Role in Watergate In your Oct. 9 PERISCOPE section (Transition), you noted the death of Frank Wills, the security guard who discovered the 1972 Watergate break-in. Although his was a job well done that changed the political paradigm of the nation, his name and face were hardly familiar to the public. But America’s perspective has changed. In the 1990s the discovery of a stained dress led to the impeachment of a president. Now the dress’s owner, who wrote a book, gets invited to celebrity galas and promotes designer purses. Danny R. Chandler Madison, Miss.
