Letters to the Editor IT'S THE RICH, STUPID
Thanks for the wonderful Mediaphobe article by Jon Katz. Katz makes the point that we are quick to blame the media for our violent society. But at the same time we cannot accept limitations on gun ownership. I used to think gun control was the answer. That was before I lived in Texas. In east Texas (and in rural New York, central Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Wyoming, you name it) asking people to increase gun control is like asking for another civil war. The degree of gun-love is simply astonishing. We've all heard about the town in Georgia where guns are required by law. It's hard to go a week in east Texas without hearing this story told approvingly. How hard should we focus on gun control when the road to hoe is so wide and rocky?
It seems to me that what people are upset about in our society is the anti-social behavior of violent criminals, pedophiles, whoever people see as a threat to themselves or (most especially) their children. Why is the society becoming more dangerous, more upsetting? I believe, despite whatever statistics Jon might quote, that this is a much less safe world now than 20 years ago. The answer is to be found in a recent New Yorker article detailing the transfer of wealth in the past 20 years. While income growth for middle America and the poor has stagnated or declined in that time, the rich and super-rich have seen a boon in their incomes. It is not just the rich getting richer. They are going bananas! Last week's New York Times had a page with 3 articles on it, one on a debutante ball ("This is where one can meet people with the same quality as yourself"), one on a lack of beds in homeless shelters, and one about some other aspect of the poorest in New York. This page typified daily life in New York -- the very rich enjoying a fabulous city in a sea of very poor, struggling people.
As long as we continue our economic segregation, which will be incredibly exacerbated by the Gingrich contract, we can expect a more armed and dangerous populace. As Suck trumpeted recently, "Tax the Rich."
Ron Ozer
LANGUAGE -- THE ULTIMATE APP
Ian Shoales doesn't have anything to worry about -- words aren't about to lose out to images in the new environment of the Web. He just needs to think of language as the ultimate Java-like applet generator. Words -- no, let's say language -- actually short-circuit the technology, and when used properly cause the sentient being at the other end of the channel to execute the applet (or think) what the originating sentient being wants.
Bob Harbort
Marietta, GA
MORE ON CHAIRMAN BILL
I was impressed by Scott Rosenberg's article on Gates. I think Rosenberg hit the nail on the head when he recognized that Gates might not want the Net to prosper and keep up its growth. Sure, Gates can put out some CD-ROMs about how all of us will live in the future, but a visionary he is not. MSN is not as popular as everyone hyped it to be, everyone knows Win95 is just a temporary system until NT is more feasible.
I just hope people are starting to realize Gates is a businessman -- Win95 is great, but upgrades cost money, and when most of the software that needs upgrading ($$$$) is from the boys in the Microsoft bunker, we are making his "vision" of what we WILL do come true. We WILL bow down to Bill.
Buy a Mac, buy a Mac clone -- just don't give Microsoft anymore money if you can do anything in your power to avoid doing so. OS2-Warp is a very good operating system. Just don't give this man any more money to make him into the hero he so desperately wants to be.
Jonathan Mergy
San Francisco, CA
FOUR-LETTER WORDS
Salon is sponsored by Apple and Adobe.
Funny, but Apple maintains "G" rating standards in eWorld, but not here? The Bill Gates article, right at the top, in italics, reads "Bill Gates What-up"? (With substitution for the "What", of course.) Call me old-fashioned, but that kind of language is not G-rated material. Come on, guys. Let's teach our children well, okay?
Bob Faulkner
In the article Ill Humor, Mr. Shoales uses the word f--- up. I doubt that use of this word or any expletives will be allowed if you are to comply with upcoming legislation. If my child looks over my shoulder while I read this we could both be subject to fines and imprisonment for subjecting him/her to this type of language. I am afraid I will have to deny myself the pleasure of reading this fine publication in the future.
George McClelland
WHO'S THE REAL OBSTACLE?
You begin with the blurb on the table of contents, calling "True Believers" a photo essay on "settlers who present a formidable obstacle to Israel's quest for peace." I must strongly object. Those who believe Israel to be on the wrong path still believe in peace -- only they believe the PLO's aim to be the destruction of Israel (the "phased plan") not true peace (see below).
You continue by saying "These settlers will not willingly move off the land." Why should they? Why can a Jew live in New York or London or even Cairo, but not "the West Bank"? Even Hitler could not make Germany free of Jews, but Peres will free Hebron of the Jews who have lived there for thousands of years. You even speak of the "Arab city of Hebron." Hebron is only Arab now because the Jews were driven out by murder and riots in the 20's (well before Israel was established).
If the PLO wanted peace... Associated Press reports (1 December) that Palestinian Authority Head Yasser Arafat has recently "called for continuing jihad [Islamic holy war] against Israel and praised those in the past who murdered innocent [Jewish] civilians," according to a report by the U.S. State Department. The report to Congress, which covers the period from June to November, also expresses the Department's dismay that the PLO has not carried out its commitment to amend its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel through violence.
So, in the end, just who is the "formidable obstacle to Israel's quest for peace"?
J. Maron
MORE, PLEASE
Good writers, interesting topics, nice layout, but --Along with another letter writer, I hate the blitvert/now you see it now you don't quality of your articles. John le Carré, for instance, was just getting interesting and then was gone; Camille Paglia likewise. Among the most recent pieces, the one about the filming of "Sense and Sensibility" does the same. You know, people who are interested in reading about le Carré, Paglia, or Austen might actually have read some of the great fat books these folks have written, and so you might work on the presumption that at least some of your audience will welcome sustained essays by or about such folks.
Perhaps you have conclusive marketing research establishing that everyone online has neither the patience nor the sense to read sustained, literate prose. However, some of us not only have the capability but also the desire to read pieces that develop an argument and supply context -- that is, to read interesting, discursive prose.
Maybe you could have two versions of some articles, one for the net.sampler, whose attention span and interests will not reach beyond a couple of screens of text, another for those of us who are interested in the matters under discussion.
Finally, do remember that you will get the readership you deserve.
Tom Maddox
THE WEB'S NEW YORKER?
Well, I think Le Carré laid down the glove, don't you? He lamented the decline in The New Yorker, something I have lamented these last few years. Can you be a New Yorker of the Web? Does the Web lend itself to the lengthy articles that allow for the depth and breadth that the old New Yorker was famous for? For a Web site, you're awesome. But as a magazine. . . just keep improving, ok?Michael Schmidt
PUNCHY
Fabulous work! Not only is Salon geared for the Web medium, but the insights are refreshing. Right on on the Beatles show. And great insights on Microsoft and the what-me-worry guy.I think what differs in Salon is that you've got people calling it like they see it and you don't seem to have to pull your punches.
Lloyd Kahn
Bolinas, CA
Please send Letters to the Editor to letters@salon.batnet.com. Include your name and address. Letters may be edited for publication.
You can also send private, not-for-publication messages to SALON at feedback@salon.batnet.com.
And, of course, you can join -- or start -- a discussion in Table Talk.
