Letters to the Editor

What You Say

Crimes Against Humanity

The story of our veterans being victimized by employeeswhile living in a government hospital is beyond belief [Underworld, "War Crimes," Gabriele Valentine, Nov. 29, 2007]. Why doesn'tsome agency "plant" an investigator or agent in the hospital todocument some of these crimes? Does anyone really care? It seems to me they don't.

The lowlifes who steal from these old, disabled veterans should have their hands chopped off, or at the very least, be fired and prosecuted for their crimes.

W.J.Chippendale
Bucks County

[Feedback, "Paul Mauls," Seth and Linda Soffer and Bill Faust, Nov. 29, 2007] excoriated me for not accepting the Ron Paul campaign's pathetic excuse for the appearance of a racist tirade in Paul's newsletter years ago: that the article was ghostwritten. As much as I hate to point out the obvious, here it is: If a candidate isn't fit to prevent appalling racial statements from appearing under his name, he isn't fit to run the country. I guess the letter writer had a point, though: I can't conclusively prove that Paul was behind that article any more than I can prove his mentions of "banking elites" and "the New World Order" aren't coded references to "Jews" — or that his long-term association with white supremacist groups like Stormfront are the same as endorsements.

What I can prove is that Paul is both a failure to true libertarians. He's opposed to abortion rights and gay marriage and supported the first invasion of the Gulf.And that he's a failure for true liberals. Paul's an eager participant in Bush's sideline domestic policy of deregulating all industry.Like Bush, Paul believes in small government — so small that powerful corporations can take the place of government, with far less public say in their operations and with far less security to the American people.

Matthew Sullivan
North Philadelphia

[Slant, "War of the Words," Michael Washburn, Nov. 29, 2007] is the most comically pathetic justification of the War on Terror I have ever seen. In flailing to justify Bush administration policy, Washburn ends up demonstrating why it hasn't worked. The author cites several instances when outside intervention failed to defend the liberal values threatened by radical Islamists, and even made the situation worse. As Washburn admits, in Basra, women are being killed for immodest dress, something that did not happen under Saddam, as horrible as he was. In the end, Western powers cannot impose liberal values on foreign cultures; changing a culture is the result of many years of education and engagement with a foreign nation, not one fell military swoop.

M.P. Gallen
Via E-mail

After reading the typical, lame, liberal, nonthinking letters in Feedback that would lead one to believe that we, the U.S., are the killers who "will slaughter our children and grandchildren," I read [Editor's Letter, "Hate Mail," Duane Swierczynski] and ["War of Words"]. Very refreshing and courageous. To think that a police officer is given credit for putting his or her life on the line every day. To think that conservatives might not be as dangerous to us as the Muslims who are dedicated to killing us. Revolutionary! Maybe you've discovered that questioning the politically correct, defeatist cowards that want to bury their heads in the sand do not have a lock on the right ideas. Please keep it up.

Del Conner
Philadelphia

After needing to read [Slant, "War of the Words," Michael Washburn, Nov. 29, 2007] numerous times in order to uncover any semblance of an argument, it had become clear that Washburn cannot discern his ignorance of the condition(s) of women around the world from his dystopian vision of the knight in shining armor saving her from the grasps of the savage. Exploiting the very critical issue of women's rights, Washburn dumps together random events to make a case against Islam, Muslims and "people of color" whom, he argues, are the real perpetrators of terror, that being against women: Ethnic Algerian Gamil Gharbi guns down women in 1989. Why? Because, claims Washburn, Gharbi "was horrified by outspoken and ambitious career women." Perhaps Gharbi and Washburn had never met any of the Algerian women who were armed and fought hand-in-hand with their male compatriots to expel the French from Algeria in their war of independence in the '50s and '60s. Because, the Quran states in Chapter 4 "that women are the weaker sex and it's their duty to serve men."

Extracting a single line from a religious text written more than 1,400 years ago without any historical, textual and religious context is just downright irresponsible (and very Fox News-like). Meanwhile, it's generally accepted that the revelations of the Quran brought moral and religious equality to women at that time. Furthermore, he reduces the rise and spread of the Nation of Islam in African-American communities to "putting women in their place" and never contextualizes the historical and temporal setting of its founding and popularity in this community at that time. The practice of suttee, the burning of widows in India, had only been outlawed thanks to the intervention of the colonizing British in 1829, asserts Washburn. Would not the Indians have condemned the human-rights issue on their own one day? We don't know, but we do know that by supporting human-rights groups and laws universally many abuses from torture to female circumcision slowly abate, not by force, but by the consensus of the community who practices them.

Men (and women) in Iraq are fighting for power, not for covering one's head. Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh (typically countries filled with Muslims and "people of color") have been led by women. While it is an unfortunate reality that in the fight for power minorities and women are often the first to lose their rights, it is not a reality that these fights are necessarily provoked by the desire to oppress them.

Alexa Firat
Northern Liberties

Washburn's column proves that isolated examples can be used to justify any argument, no matter how ignorant or factually incorrect it may be. I would like to point out some of these inaccuracies.

First of all, Marc Lépine, born Gamil Gharbi, was not Muslim; he was baptized Catholic. He legally changed his name when he turned 18 and, in reaction to the hatred he felt for his father, took his Canadian mother's maiden name. Please do not exploit his father's ethnicity to further your point. A good start would be to refer to him by his proper name, Marc Lépine. Furthermore, Marc had little to no contact with his father after age 7 due to his parents separation and subsequent divorce. After this point he was raised by his mother and her family. Clearly his father did not have as great as an impact on his childhood as you imply. As tragic and horrific as the Montreal murders were, they had nothing to do with Islam but had everything to do with Marc's personal anti-feminist views.

The chapter in the Quran you referenced is the fourth chapter and is called "Al Nisa, The Women." While there is a verse which states men and women are created unequally, one stronger the other weaker, I would like to point out that the same verse continues to say the stronger sex should protect the weaker. Protect, not oppress. Many like to point to this verse to justify their claim that Islam encourages the ill treatment of women while this is absolutely not the case. The rest of the chapter, in its 170-odd verses, speaks to women's rights in Islam and their treatment with regard to marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. Which religion, or group of people, 1,400 years ago, gave women the right to inherit or own property? Please realize that the fair and equal treatment of women is a fairly new phenomenon for us in the West and even that is questionable when it comes to certain professions and social circles.

A glaring error in your column is regarding suttee. This is a Hindu custom and is not practiced by Muslims. Hindu and Muslim funeral practices are as different as day and night and I'm confused as to how you are using the practice of suttee to further your point that Muslims are against liberal values.

Islam, as a faith, is not against liberal values. I urge you to look past what the media projects and do a little research on the matter. Islam is not a hateful religion and does not promote violence. Jihad is not encouraged and peaceful negotiation is the recommended means to settle differences. After Christianity, Islam is the second largest religion with almost two billion followers. Out of this huge number, there is proportionately small number who are ruining the religion and its meaning for the rest of the world. Acts of violence have been committed in the name of Islam but does that mean all Muslims need to be punished because of it? This war shouldn't be about Islam or religion but about the subset of people who have misinterpreted the religion to further their own beliefs and politics.

I cannot stress this enough: Islam does not encourage the ill treatment of women. The Prophet Muhammad's wife Khadija was a successful businesswoman and traveled alone on camelback through the deserts of Arabia 1,500 years ago. Her involvement in her business did not change after her marriage. The prophet gave her the utmost respect and would seldom make a decision without first taking her advice. Benazir Bhutto, a woman, was elected president of Pakistan, a Muslim country, in 1988. If Islam espouses the oppression of women how is it possible for there to be such a history of strong and powerful women in Islam?

Yes, women are treated badly in some Muslim countries but this is not the view of the religion but of chauvinistic men who want to oppress women. It's important that we begin to realize the difference.

Habiba Waziruddin
Via e-mail

Thank you for the kind words about Chris Larkin [Naked City, "Icepack," A.D. Amorosi, Nov. 29, 2007]. Most of us who knew him are still in shock. Thank you even more for mentioning my late high school friend Joey Wilson. Now will someone please get off their ass and do something with those Joey & the Pets tapes that are out there rotting somewhere? Insatiable, the wonderful Stick Men album that came out in 2001 showed the world the brilliance of the late, great Peter Baker (we will never see the like of him again). It would be nice to own their music along with their memories.

AJay McLaughlin
Philadelphia

Upon boarding the train going home, I came across the City Paper, a pleasant alternative to the rubbish commonly found on the less-than-appetizing SEPTA faux leather seating. As I paged through I stopped, for I saw "Philly Blunt" and apicture of Andy Reid and was rather intrigued ["Outside the Lines," Brian Hickey, Nov. 29, 2007]. After reading the feature I was blown away.The order of events and sentence structure were a beautifulslap in the face to those who walk in obviousness. The whirlwind of a story, which incorporates so much in so little, bringing it all together in an outright stern message, invigorated my inspiration.

Tom Rowan
Fox Chase

I have worked in Center City hospitals for 20 years and have witnessed a seemingly endless parade of GSW (gun shot wounds) victims,the majority, by far, young black males. In fact, my colleague witnessed an OK Corral-esque shoot-out from his bike on the way home from work the other day. I don't know what the answer is.Legalize or decriminalize drugs, like they did in season three of The Wire, aNorth Philly-style Hamsterdam? Stiffer gun laws? I like the new mayor and I'm hoping something will come of having new,enthusiastic leadership.

Eileen Mathers
Fairmount

Hate Us

I can't wait for the day I leaf through City Paper and see the headline: "Philly Loves Never Never Land." Or, "Philly Loves Mesopotamia." Of course, the former identifies a place that only exists in fiction while the latter identifies a region of the world that existed in the past but no longer does. Both of those situations apply to a place called "Palestine," so you might imagine my surprise when I saw that name in black and white [Agenda, "Philly Loves Palestine," Will Dean, Nov. 29, 2007].

As for Dean's assertion that Palestinian Arabs are "underdogs," well, it seems he needs a reality check. They are about as much an underdog as Michael Nutter was in the recent Philly mayoral race. Like Mr. Nutter, the Palestinian Arabs have the numbers and a gigantic, well-organized and savvy machine on their side. In Nutter's case, it was the Democratic Party. As for the Palestinian Arabs, since they self-identify as part of the pan-Arab and pan-Islamic global movements, they are part of a people numbering over one billion. As for machines, there are probably none bigger nor formidable than the oil-funded Saudi Arabian propaganda conglomeration — a chief beneficiary of that is the phony Palestinian Arab cause.

With billions in petro-dollars fueling their well-established campaign to demonize and then eradicate Israel, it's no wonder Dean was fooled into believing such a fairy tale.

Steve Feldman
Executive Director Greater Philadelphia District, Zionist Organization of America

This is in response to [Feedback, "Signal Errors," Name Withheld, Nov. 15, 2007], who lamented how they trudged about our city seeking solace of an Internet signal — even having to stop in Starbucks and paying (a shitload, may I add) for the privilege to sit and suck on their Internet provider. This may come as self-serving to many, but I have asked — and heard from — countless of my customers: Why do people pay to go to a fecal-fest like Starbucks and pay a lot of money for their Internet service, then pay even more for tepid, milky, sugary concoctions to swell their waistlines with half the espresso that independents (not just mine) put in a drink, and pay more?! You pay more for less, flush money outta your economy, consume calorie-busting, chemistry-created cocktails, when you can walk a block or two to an independent coffee house for something better-tasting and a much better value — and use the Internet for the cost of a purchase.

I'm starting to understand that maybe W. Bush/Dick "Uncle Fester" Cheney really did win the election fair and square.

Joe Cesa
Proprietor, Joe Coffee Bar

Janine Blackwell knew she had an ace in her hand and held the trump card close to her chest for three years by blocking moving the detention center from the Parkway to make room for the proposed Barnes Foundation museum [News, "Sneak Attack," Ted Hesson, Sept. 13, 2007]. It turned out to be a royal straight flush that won her $12 million from Mayor Street (for a community center bearing her husband's name) as a last hurrah to steal the Barnes' multibillion-dollar art collection. This is blatant proof positive of the band of co-conspirators to "buy off" Blackwell, as Gov. Rendell bought off the trustees of Lincoln University with $80 million in grants and transferred $25 million from the state's education fund for the move. Dirty politics as usual.

The die is cast and the floodgates open. Costs to temporarily move the center will be $8 million and untold millions of taxpayer's money to build a new Youth Study Center. Plus, the estimated $100 to $200 million to build the museum.

The Committee of Seventy questioned the wisdom of meeting the councilwoman's demands; the committee's president, Zack Stalberg, states, "I can't remember anything quite as brazen as this!" Sadly, Mayor-elect Nutter has been sucked into this robbery with, "I'm glad to hear some progress has been made." What a sad commentary on this whole sordid affair.

Philip Lustig
Downingtown