LETTERS: Who's being too pushy here?

To the Editor: Yet here Aneed is, in an equally public forum, actively trying to convert the reader to Christianity. I don't know where he learned for sure that God "gets very sad when bad things happen to people" (he seemed quite callous toward Job, for example, and his attitude was more one of righteous indignation when he caused the Flood). All presumptions about the divine aside, Aneed should make up his mind whether it's okay to be "in your face" about something as personal as religion or sexuality. I am no more interested in being converted to Christianity than I am to homosexuality (as if you could convert to homosexuality), but we should either outlaw this sort of communication altogether, or Aneed should abandon his double standard. Anthony Smith College '99 Security satire fell flat To the Editor: While Kira Baker and Nathan Smith had valid concerns about Steve Schorr's column "Penn's main responsibility" (DP, 3/20/98) the way in which they expressed their point (DP, 3/26/98) was gravely misguided. First of all, their abuse of satire diluted their message and, frankly, got old fast. In fact, their over-extrapolation of a single basic concept almost seemed insulting, as if it takes a few hundred words for the idea to register in their readers' brains. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they spent one scant paragraph brushing upon vague ideas to fix the problem they just discussed in excruciating detail. Problems are abundant, but solutions are scarce -- and I for one would love to hear some. Anyone can rant, but I look to the DP to present information and well-thought-out viewpoints that I could not find elsewhere. Perhaps the independent ombudsman columnist Mike Madden has suggested would have suggested this as well. Nick Kruse College '01 Multiplicity of meaning To the Editor: I would like to take issue with Michael Pereira's fact checkers (Letters to the Editor, DP, 3/25/98) for their bland and reductive misreading of his column "Titanic history, a ship of fools" (DP, 3/24/98). They suggest that Pereira misplaces an English and Irish tragedy by calling it American. But isn't that precisely what Titanic does as a movie? The stuff of tragedy becomes Hollywood farce. You saw Jim Cameron at the Oscars -- a moment of silence followed by an exhortation to "party all night!" Pereira's column maps this transition from history to spectacle in a sophisticated and subtle analysis. Yet in place of cultural critique, Pereira's critics would substitute unreflecting reportage, factual spoon-feeding. The word Titanic now has multiple connotations; it has become at once adjective, tragedy and best-seller. Pereira's perspicacity consists in saying something original about a subject which has almost exhausted signification. The intellectual eunuchs who criticize his column simply can't perceive the shades of meaning he is trying to highlight. Jennifer Rosen College '99