In reference to Mr. Mischnick’s letter from April 9, Mr. Al Farra was not the only one who “did not get the joke” in Mr. Wong’s article. Several friends and I did not see the humor in it.

I do not think Mr. Wong’s thesis was to “show through satire that there is value in every life, and that saving 100 lives with one is usually worth it,” as Mr. Mischnick seems to believe. I think he is the only one who interpreted it that way. Perhaps we’re all “stupid” then?

I’ve read a lot of satire before, and I am accustomed to writers who make their intentions clear at a certain point. Mr. Wong never made his intentions clear.

On the contrary, he quotes Pat Buchanan, then concludes “Americans are worth more than non-Americans.”

Mr. Wong made fun of the government’s foreign policies, which I have no problem with. What really got on my nerves is his newfound strategy of defining ratios (of values of lives) and basing foreign aid and decisions of war on these ratios.

Thousands of lives are threatened by disease, embargoes and even bombings. In times such as these, one expects from a Daily columnist a more professional and humane way of writing.

Satire, if indeed that was the original intention, is not the best strategy.

Finally, to Mr. Mischnick, when communicating your thoughts in the Daily, please refrain from using 5-year-old language like “stupid” and “supposed to have a brain.” I believe ISU students should be able to communicate intelligently.

Akram Saleem

Senior

Management information systems