I like to grab your paper each week for some articles the mainstream media largely forgets, plus the sudoku puzzle helps pass a bit more time in my day. But you should be more judicious with your editing, because the Feb. 24 issue had some colossally moronic editorials.
First you had a nigh-worthless “review” of Black Panther, where the first line is about how the unnamed author doesn’t want to criticize — one wonders why s/he wrote the article at all then, and why they were afraid to attach their name to it. Historically, there was a period of time when films featuring black casts were green lit – the 1970s. The budgets were smaller, but what is Black Panther except big-budgets-Blacksploitation? The plot is the same as half of the Marvel movies, merely a retelling of the Fisher King Story, just with fresh faces and costumes. African Americans will continue to be treated harshly in real life America, while Disney collects their dollars for seeing this self-fulfilment movie. Disney is merely pandering to an untapped market, the same as with “Coco,” a movie which had its main conflict rest on illegal immigration, a topic so on-the-nose I’m surprised there wasn’t public outcry, as if that’s the only story you can tell about Mexicans? If you want the Hollywood version of Asian heroes, they already made “Green Hornet.” I’ll stick to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” its plot is driven by women who decide their own fates and share the majority of the screentime, with all points of view having validity.
As for the next commentary, about arming teachers, you failed to mention that the NRA says guns are the answer to every problem, nor did you mention that they get major funding from gun sellers, so of course they want more people to buy guns.
Mr. Su also claims that armed teachers in Israel stopped attacks, yet did not cite a specific incident. And “good guys” with guns were present at this latest Florida shooting, yet the cop hid and waited for backup.
Same as with the recent Vegas massacre. Mr. Su also claims that all shooters are “infantile young men,” yet he would rather we put them down like dogs, instead of trying to counsel them into maturing? His bio at the end also says “he had to be his own first responder and that defense starts with self.” Why do we not let all students arm themselves then? Why should they rely on a teacher for protection, instead of themselves?
Teachers can be bullies too, or have bad aim and miss the shooter and multiply a disaster, plus when SWAT arrive, they have many more variables. Why not look to the example of Australia’s disarmament program from the 1990s? Do they have school massacres? Perhaps the problem is with American society, and changing nothing hasn’t changed our results. “Good guys” with guns enforced 9066.
— Barry Mishka