Harper’s muzzles

Regarding your past two Insects of the week [Stephen Harper “muzzling cabinet,” March 23, and “Harper muzzling the press,” March 30]:

In all the brouhaha over the running battle between the PMO and the Ottawa press gallery over Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s desire to restrict reporter access to “information of national importance,” one question cries out to be answered: How did the Liberals manage to get the Conservatives to hire Sandra Buckler as Mr. Harper’s communications director—or is that miscommunications director?

» A. Lawrence Healey

Mustang tally

I couldn’t help but notice that your article on product placement in films [“Starring your brand,” March 9] claims that War of the Worlds has two instances where Ford’s products are flashed on screen. I would suggest instead that the entire first quarter of the film is an ad for Ford.

The release of the movie coincided with Ford’s release of its new retro-styled Mustang, based on the vintage car driven by the Cruise character in the opening sequences. To add to that, the whole set comes across as a Ford Fantasy World. Pay close attention to the details of the first half hour of the film (up until the characters are forced to flee), and you will notice that pretty much all cars appearing in the background are either more Ford models, or are Mazdas and Volvos (both owned by Ford). In one case I think it’s a brand new Mazda that appears very clearly in a reflection in a store window.

Probably most people wouldn’t even notice, but I started looking for the different makes and models after the Mustang thing hit me over the head. Perhaps because Stephen Spielberg didn’t want it to go on forever, or because Ford only paid so much, the subliminal ad comes to an end when Cruise and company pile into an old beat-up Dodge Caravan and make a run for it.

Eventually everyone resorts to travelling on foot, which may prove to be Spielberg’s prophetic vision of the future. We can only hope.

» Maclean

Why they fight

Eugene Jarecki deserves commendation for his enlightening analysis of his film Why We Fight [Cover, “Bombs away,” March 16]. In referring to past president Dwight Eisenhower as a present-day hero, he serves us with an overview hardly mentioned in the American press. Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” warning of 1961 is so strongly relevant today, yet completely forgotten in the proclamations on patriotism, anti-communism, homeland security and the “War on Terror,” with its assortment of phobias used to justify armaments never before imagined in history.

And, what about these armaments? The U.S. invaded Iraq to test and evaluate weapons—period! Not out of altruism, WMD or an external threat, but instead to keep the military-industrial machine well oiled and exercised, assuring further research into improved weapons systems.

And, what of these weapons systems? The U.S. assembled the most automated and sophisticated weapons systems in history, in record time, with full logistical support and mobility—from infrared-vision body armour to satellite-guided missiles, from contoured-explosive carpet bombs to an armada of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with pilotless drone aircraft. Indeed, the electronic battlefield has set new “standards” for warfare. Herein is the essence of a military hegemony.

Most notably, Jarecki’s film lends true meaning to the “Corporate State”—a state whose overwhelming economic influence operates regardless of which president becomes “Commander in Chief” or of which administration sets national policy.

We certainly can appreciate technological progress. But not projects meant to destroy lives.

» Edward Abramic

Reefer recap

[Re: “The Reefer Man,” People, March 23, and “Reefer radness,” Letters, March 30]: Lost in the debate over marijuana is the ugly truth behind marijuana prohibition. North America’s marijuana laws are based on culture and xenophobia, not science. The original marijuana laws were a racist reaction to Mexican migration during the early 1900s. Emily Murphy first warned Canadians about the dreaded reefer and its association with non-white immigrants. The sensationalist yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst led to its criminalization in the United States.

Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. Whites did not even begin to smoke marijuana until a soon-to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began funding reefer madness propaganda. When threatened, the drug war gravy train predictably decries the “message” that drug policy reform sends to children. There is a big difference between condoning marijuana use and protecting children from drugs.

Decriminalization acknowledges the social reality of marijuana and frees users from the stigma of criminal records. What’s really needed is a regulated market with age controls. As long as marijuana distribution remains in the hands of organized crime, consumers will continue to come into contact with addictive drugs like cocaine. This “gateway” is the direct result of a fundamentally flawed policy. Drug policy reform may send the wrong message to children, but I like to think the children are more important than the message.

» Robert Sharpe, MPA, Policy Analyst,
Common Sense for Drug Policy, Washington, DC

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.