Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (27974)	5/2/2002 10:23:00 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I've read it and, though I thought it was a good piece of journalism, was not particularly impressed because it offered no thoughts as to solutions. Much too bland and detached. It's rare, at this moment, to listen to a voice, now lost, hopefully only for not too long, that carries a different, a more humane view than the shrill screaming we hear now. I have great nostalgia for that voice and fear there is no way back. I gather you don't. As for Fallaci's journalism, it has been all about finding the next most extreme adjective for some time. It doesn't help us understand a problem; nor see that there are folk on each side who have some sense for the other. More than tough times.

To: carranza2 who wrote (27974)	5/2/2002 10:38:30 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

I suppose it's a matter of taste. And I disagree with your assesment that Remmick is more "humane". The subject calls for passion and fireworks. Because it has nothing to do with the subject, I don't need to know that the scholar wears a houndstooth jacket, that his wife's father was a leader in the use of simplified English, that he trims his beard carefully, etc. I half-way expected to hear that he shops at L. L. Bean. All these "facts" do nothing to promote understanding of the subject nor do they give the reader a unique and valuable point of view. Lots and lots of irrelevancies. A friend is a serious, published poet. He chides those who take the The New Yorker's poetry seriously and sarcastically classifies people based on whether they would believe that the poems it publishes are worthy of note--"Ah, So-and-So, he'd rave over The New Yorker's poetry." Though it has published many excellent articles recently, this one falls in the mediocre column, in my estimation, along with most of the poetry. It was a good read, though, and I did not immediately turn it away. As tb might say, the guy needs a good editor.