Your Dec. 27 report on “Russia: a Frozen Land of Crisis” was interesting, but I was very disappointed in how the article portrayed life in Siberia. As an American who is living in Novosibirsk, I am impressed with the efforts most Russians are making to get themselves and their country moving forward with this reform. It is a daunting task at best. And, yes, there are many harsh realities, but there is also a beauty about Siberia, Novosibirsk and the Russian people that was not fairly credited. I urge you to take a deeper and more balanced look.
The decision to publish four dismal images of Russia’s everyday life is controversial at best. Here’s why. As a former Russian citizen born in 1951, I acknowledge that, in Russia, similar pictures could have been shot in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s or ’80s, but then nobody talked of Russia’s agony. Similar pictures can be shot here in America, too. Does that mean America is in crisis? During my repeated trips to Russia in the ’90s, I’ve seen my colleagues enjoy a higher standard of living today than ever before. So where’s the truth? It is either complex and multifaceted or it’s where you want to see it.
Your portfolios paint a grim Bosch-type image of Russia, a Russia with no hope and no future. Yes, my country is going through times of trouble. Yes, we are disoriented, we are suffering and it hurts. The people are filled with disillusionment, anger and anxiety. Russia is cautious of the so-called market reforms, perhaps guessing that American “values” will never bring happiness. But you’re selling an image of a Russia on the edge of self-destruction, a nuclear menace, a Russia inhabited by drunks alone, to an audience brought to believe the “evil empire” myth. Every country has its negative side. Why not show some respect for the people you photograph? Why not come with an open mind and lift the stereotypes created by cold-war propaganda? Russia has a different face than the one staring at me from your pages. I’ve found so many images of hope, not despair, when I’ve traveled there.
This has to be the saddest news of the year. The whole “Peanuts” gang has brought me many joyful moments, lifted me up when I was down and also reflected something in each of us. I’d like to wish Charles M. Schulz the best.
I’ve always longed to tell Charles Schulz how much a part of our family his wonderful characters have become. When my son was young, he loved Snoopy so much that he decided to become a dog. He ate out of a dog dish, and did quite a bit of woofing for years. I remember a day when he was saddened by the cruelty of someone he had thought was a friend. It was the first time he felt betrayed by the world. He looked up at me, eyes full of tears, and said, “I wish Snoopy was real.” As we talked about Snoopy, he was comforted. What a wonderful imaginary pal Snoopy was! There are days when I, too, “wish Snoopy was real,” and that everyone I encountered had the gentle heart of Charles Schulz.
As an 8-year-old in 1974, I turned to “Peanuts” to take my mind off missing my parents, who were away. Whom will I turn to now if I miss “Peanuts”?
I’ve loved Snoopy since I was young, and although my childhood is over I still have Snoopy beside my bed at night. But until I read “So Long, Snoopy & Co.” I did not know much about Snoopy’s creator. Thanks, NEWSWEEK, for featuring this Special Report, and most important, thanks, Charles Schulz, for the “Peanuts” gang.
The historical Arthur was a Celtic chieftain fighting off Britain’s Saxon invaders in the sixth century A.D. There are also signs of an earlier Arthur in pagan mythology later muddled by the additions of Christian storytellers.
I thank you for your article on pornography in Philippine films. It was a long-overdue eye-opener. Three of our sizzling sexpots recently bared their bodies to an already demoralized public under the blessings of an evil high priestess of the Philippine cinema. Heaven forbid that Filipinos enter the new millennium under the sinister shadow of a collective moral crisis.
Like Jessica Zafra, I’m a young Filipino (“Save Us From Saviors,” Asia, Dec. 6). But while she feels insulted about the whole morality campaign against pornographic movies, I believe that the Philippines’ chief movie censor, Henrietta Mendez, and others cared enough for the youth of our country to go to the streets and to brave the criticism of our people. If movie producers and other members of the film industry demand their freedom, the “moralists” should also be allowed to make use of their freedom to speak up.
As horrible as it is that the world’s poor are being compelled into selling their organs to help the rich, I find it even more appalling that Roga had to sell his kidney in the hopes of saving his son from measles. Why? In this day and age, measles is not only treatable and curable but also preventable. Governments and health organizations would be most efficient in their fight against organ trading by improving the situation for the poor. If a person had access to proper health care, nutrition and education, would he still consider selling his own organs?
