MADELEINE’S WAR
TIME managing editor Walter Isaacson wrote a truly profound and critical analysis of what motivates Secretary of State Madeleine Albright [KOSOVO CRISIS, May 17], giving us insight into her childhood experiences and her ensuing moral beliefs. But there are thousands of people who lived in Europe through the Nazi period or Stalinist domination who later became U.S. citizens and whose views are quite different from those of Albright. As a teenager, I lived for five years in Nazi-occupied Holland. Albright’s experiences led to a naive morality that is not shared by many who lived under despots but recognize the complexities of a “just war.” CAROLYNE M. VAN VLIET Miami
Thank God that this U.S. Secretary of State knows what Hitler and Stalin did. Maybe this knowledge will make the world a little bit better. KRISTOPH BONIETZKI Lubeck, Germany
It is now clear whose personal ambitions and blindness are behind the Kosovo mess. I was stunned by Albright’s challenge in 1993 to Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell: “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright does not realize that the point is to have a superb fighting force and not use it–ever! Or at least do everything possible and impossible not to use it. Thanks to her, the world is a much more dangerous place to live. The U.S. did show other nations that we do not care about the U.N., do not respect international laws and are willing to use force whenever we feel like it. SERGUEI ARTIOUCHKOV San Francisco
Madeleine Albright rocks! Many people think a woman her age would be doing quilting or needlepoint. But here she is, talking away–not to her sister or some friend but to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. Everything I read about her bolsters my faith in myself and other women. She is a perfect role model. MARY LU SEIDEL Fox River Grove, Ill.
It’s high time for the U.S. to get out of NATO. Send Madame Secretary back to her beloved Europe, where she belongs! TOM HOFFMAN Osprey, Fla.
At long last, a brilliant Secretary of State with balls! JOHN DANYO Avondale Estates, Ga.
Albright has compromised U.S. long-term strategic interests in order to impose her version of a short-term world order. On the global stage, the niceties of “high moral ground” positions often conflict with geopolitical realities. The only lasting legacy of the Albright-led policies will be a new version of the cold war. Russia, China et al. will now hasten to restore the balance of power that was temporarily disrupted by the collapse of the Soviet empire. Albright’s foreign policy doctrine has become that of a cowardly bully, and it will haunt the U.S. and its allies for years to come. CHARLES NARDI Akron, Ohio
After Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi, can we put to rest the idea that women in positions of power are less likely than their male counterparts to use violence? JOHN M. BAKER Pathum Thani, Thailand
Albright says she hates tyrants. I do not in any way support the ethnic cleansing of Slobodan Milosevic, but it is outrageous to kill hundreds of unarmed civilians; bomb churches, houses, schools, hospitals and even embassies; and destroy the present and future lives of 8 million Serbs. If more care had been given to the ill-fated Rambouillet peace conference, and if its terms had been fairer to Serbia, all this bombing could have been avoided. JANE E. MCKEEVER GIANNIKA Athens
CHARGES ABOUT K.L.A. FUNDS
Your article on the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army ignored the reported connection of the organization to drug smugglers [KOSOVO CRISIS, May 17]. There are charges that part of the money being raised by the K.L.A. may be traced to such activities. Why is this nation incarcerating thousands of low-level drug users if the U.S. is indirectly supporting international drug bandits? MARK THIEL South Bend, Ind.
BUNGLED BOMBING
The rage of the Chinese at the NATO bombing of their embassy in Belgrade [KOSOVO CRISIS, May 17], in contrast to their seeming resignation to the greater carnage and tyranny at home, brought to mind the words of Chinese writer Lu Xun: “Of course, whether we are massacred by our own people, or we are massacred by foreigners, does not amount to exactly the same thing. Thus, for instance, if a man slaps his own face, he will not feel insulted, whereas if someone else slaps him, he will feel angry. However, when a man is so cretinous that he can slap his own face, he fully deserves to be slapped by any passerby.” JAMYANG NORBU Dharamshala, India
The CIA’s name should be changed from Central Intelligence Agency to Consistently Inept Agency. If boo-boos of the magnitude of using an old map to locate a crucial building were made in the business world, heads would roll and stock prices would plunge. TED RYDIN Flat Rock, N.C.
ORGANS FROM THE DEAD
Charles Krauthammer was right on the mark in supporting the concept of payment for organs from deceased people [ESSAY, May 17]. I approve of Pennsylvania’s plan to pay relatives of organ donors $300 for funeral expenses. Moving the “moral line” in allowing payments for organ donations from the deceased is long overdue. I hope this article will bring about debates and new ideas on how best to increase donations. My husband has this suggestion: those who wish to ride motorcycles without helmets should be free to do so, but only if they sign organ-donor cards before they mount up. JEANNE ELAINE AYERS Lancaster, Pa.
I am one of the lucky ones. I got a kidney and a pancreas nearly 10 years ago from a wonderful and unselfish donor family that I never met, let alone compensated. I have a four-year-old child whom I would never have borne without the gift of life from the family’s young daughter after her tragic death. But the idea of paying for organs makes even me squirm. A better idea for the 62,000 Americans waiting for an organ donation would be a law that requires everyone to be an organ donor except those who oppose the idea; they could sign a card saying they did not want to donate. The pool of badly needed organs would greatly increase. Sweden already has this implied-consent model in effect, and it works. LAUREN JACOX Seattle
A prediction concerning the Pennsylvania pay-for-organs plan: six months after the program begins, funeral costs will rise $300. CHARLES RUFFING East Lansing, Mich.
SO IT’S NOT CITIZEN KANE…
For your critic Richard Corliss to compare The Phantom Menace to the 1998 box-office bomb Godzilla was a horrid mistake [CINEMA, May 17]. The Star Wars prequel may be the most hyped film in recent decades, but that does not mean viewers’ expectations won’t be met and their dreams fulfilled. One must view it as an epic, a film of magnificent proportions. Analyzing the number of action scenes and dwelling on excess dialogue are futile. This movie must be judged as part of a whole and in relation to the rest of the Star Wars stories. DAVID ROOT Port Washington, N.Y.
Isn’t it sacrilegious to give any Star Wars movie a bad review? After reading Corliss’s piece “The Phantom Movie,” I realized that the 1977 Star Wars had its problems. Its dialogue was poor at best, and it didn’t seem like an automatic Academy Award winner. But the original trilogy was consistent in style and purpose. The Star Wars epic was not intended to parallel Gone With the Wind, Casablanca or Citizen Kane, but instead the films were basically old-time stories of good vs. bad, right against wrong and love overcoming hopelessness. BENJAMIN GREENZWEIG New York City
I saw The Phantom Menace last week. It could have been a movie that emotionally engages the audience. All George Lucas had to do was give the actors meaningful lines, allow them a little self-expression and provide some background on the characters. This wouldn’t have cost any more money, nor would it have required changing the special effects. But Lucas seems almost pathologically afraid of letting feelings or relationships intrude upon his computer-perfect films. Lucas has forgotten that it was the personalities, not the pyrotechnics, that made us love Star Wars. DEBBIE GILBERT Memphis, Tenn.
CHARITABLE WOMEN
Congratulations on your excellent article on the expanding role of women in charitable giving [PHILANTHROPY, May 17]. Women prefer to earmark their gifts to projects that promise to bring about social change. They tend to be philanthropic entrepreneurs, often creating new programs. Women experience unique barriers to giving, such as the fear that they will outlive their resources. But another barrier is that women are not asked to give at the same rate as men. Our group provides educational seminars and publications to motivate women to become philanthropic leaders for the nonprofit causes of their choosing. Through their gifts of time, talent and funds, women are shaping the future. ANDREA KAMINSKI Executive Director Women’s Philanthropy Institute Madison, Wis.
OLIVER REED’S ODD RECORD
I cannot claim to have been an intimate friend of the actor Oliver Reed [MILESTONES, May 17], but I lived in the same area and had the occasional drink with him at various local watering holes. I think he holds the record for beer drinking: 109 pints of lager in 24 hours. I make that 4 1/2 pints an hour. I know many men who can drink five or six pints in an hour, but not many could sustain that consumption for 24 hours! ANTHONY PHILLIPS London
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Your Vote Is Safe
- The Best Inventions of 2024
- How the Electoral College Actually Works
- Robert Zemeckis Just Wants to Move You
- Column: Fear and Hoping in Ohio
- How to Break 8 Toxic Communication Habits
- Why Vinegar Is So Good for You
- Meet TIME's Newest Class of Next Generation Leaders
Contact us at letters@time.com