Letters to the Editor

– Cheshire Dave Beckerman

Yes, Lauryn Hill is not “married”; she has not put on the stage show of a “wedding” to be found acceptable by our standards. She has two children, gifts from God. She chose not to abort them, and she has help from their father to raise them in the right way. What is the problem?

Who are we to judge her lifestyle? Lauryn Hill is a role model for young people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the clothes that she wears. We as black people are so afraid of showing our strong, beautiful bodies because we are still hung up on the way “the massas and the missus” made us feel about our sexuality. There is a difference between wearing the clothes to get a man and wearing the clothes because you look great in them. It all comes down your poise, your attitude and your self-confidence. Don’t blame Lauryn for the way our young people act. Lauryn was an adult before she had both children. She is educating herself, she has created opportunities for children who would not have any, and she is making a living for herself. What is wrong with that? Oh, I forgot … She didn’t do it “the acceptable way.”

– Donna Tomlinson-Smith

The rehabilitation of Latrell Sprewell
BY JULIAN RUBINSTEIN
(06/21/99)

Sprewell is a ballplayer who screwed up, paid dues and resumed making
gazillions. Neither you nor the Times nor the Post make a case for the Sprewell story to
warrant all the racial, psychological or moral weight it has received. Your
point for projection is right only insofar as writers and fans delude
themselves into thinking that assessing this overhyped matter really matters.
Enough already. Sprewell is a great athlete and a pleasure to watch.

– Ron Graziose

Mill Valley, Calif.

What your correspondent failed to mention — and probably notice — is that the
coach who was choked was P.J. Carlesimo. Most fans in the New York City area, who have
watched Carlesimo’s antics for years and have memories longer than most
sports reporters, heard about the attack and said, “It’s about time.”

– Ken Houghton

Maplewood, N.J.

Ramsey Clark, the war criminal’s best friend
BY IAN WILLIAMS

(06/21/99)

The suggestion that Ramsey Clark is both nuts and subversive is perhaps
half right — if being subversive means standing up for unpopular truths.
I know Ramsey Clark from his defense of the Bernard Coard and the
Grenada 17, those falsely accused of murdering Maurice Bishop of
Grenada. I have carefully researched the facts of this case, interviewed
the accused and their prosperous accusers, at great length. It is clear
to me that they are innocent, and were denied a fair trial. Clark has
sacrificed money, time and reputation in defending the Grenada 17, held
in a 17th century prison under terrible conditions for nearly 16
years, and tortured for the first nine. For Clark, the
terrible irony of his integrity is that he could have used his former
position to prosper, play golf and become eccentric (like Gerald Ford) or to
dash about interfering in international affairs, on the side of
dominance (Jimmy Carter). Since he sides with truths that are not easily seen
and people who are not necessarily powerful, he’s nuts? I think not.

– Rich Gibson

College of Education

Wayne State University

Detroit

As the air over Kosovo reeks with the stench of mouldering victims of
Milosevic, joining the odor left by his victims in Bosnia and elsewhere, we
still find apologists for the Serbian butchers everywhere we turn. It
doesn’t surprise me that Ramsey Clark is one of them.

The right-wing-led media, of course, love this: They go out of their way to
take Clark seriously, as a way of “counterbalancing” the rapidly unfolding
evidence of Serb-committed atrocities. Space taken up by a Ramsey Clark
article means less space that might be devoted to, say, a story on how the
early Kosovar refugee reports of massacres and Kosovars being held for use
as “human shields” are being proven to be right in every particular. It’s
the same reason the media is obsessing on possible Kosovar “revenge,” even
as the KLA agrees to disarm and very few genuine reports of revenge acts by
Kosovars on Serbs have been documented: It’s a way of crowding out the news
about the rotting, burned bodies left by the Serbs’ reign of terror.

– Tamara Baker

St. Paul, Minn.

While Ian Williams presents a seductive character assassination of Ramsey
Clark, it is significant that he shows no interest in rebutting any of
Clark’s positions with facts. One suspects this is because many of Clark’s
arguments, regardless of how one may feel about the company in which they
are made, are so intelligent and sound. The fact that NATO has violated the
Geneva Convention by attacking civilian targets in Serbia, for example, is
fairly clear cut; as is NATO’s violation of international law by attacking
a U.N. member state without the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Perhaps
some rational argument could be mustered in NATO’s defense, but I have yet to
hear any attempt to do so. I think I know why.

Like the State Department, Williams uses the strategy of insinuating that
the charges leveled at NATO by Clark are so ludicrous they deserve no
response. This is a very clever way to avoid making a defense when you
don’t really have one. Like a lawyer who knows he has no case on the facts
or the law (Ken Starr, for instance), Williams chooses to refute Clark’s arguments by
attacking his character: accusing him of consorting with unsavory folks,
including the “enemy.” While branding critics of one’s government a crazy
radical and a traitor is a favorite tactic of governments and their
representatives (Milosevic’s critics are branded NATO sympathizers, for
example), I do not understand why Williams, or Salon, chose to aid the
State Department with their dirty work.

– Jeffrey Benner

What single girls want remains unclear
BY CRAIG OFFMAN
(06/17/99)

Single girls shouldn’t want (or expect) anything more than they’re willing to
give. Men have been told since we were boys that women want equal
rights. Well, equal rights comes with equal responsibilities — it
goes both ways!

Let’s see more women asking men out, and paying for dates; asking men to
marry them; initiating the courting process; opening doors for men;
essentially, exhibiting all the niceties that they would like men to do.

It’s really pretty simple, and it doesn’t take a dissertation committee
to come to an agreement: Single girls should treat single guys the way
they want to be treated. It’s the “golden rule.”

– Steve Collins.

Magic’s seductive hold
BY RICHARD RODRIGUEZ

(06/17/99)

“Como agua para chocolate” is an exquisite novel and well translated into
the cinema — Rodriguez shouldn’t blame other Americans for liking it, as it shows that they haven’t lost your good taste for things worthwhile.

I have found out that every day more
Americans like chili, frijoles and Mexican food;
and now that I am going to travel to Europe, the most wanted article Europeans
have asked me to take as a gift is nothing less than “tortillas.”

The former Californian governor did a
good job disgracing Mexicans, but Mexico is a truly fascinating place. The influx
of retired Americans coming to live in Mexico
shows that no matter how much negative propaganda is made against the poor
neighbor, there are places, people, climate, food, mystery, history and charm worth
enough to go there.

– Luis Valderrama

Everywhere I look in U.S. media and culture I find a significant blurring of
the distinction between fact and fantasy. From Littleton to the Starr
fiasco to apparently serious interviews with astrologists and table
knockers to the popularity of wrestling and pyramids, Americans are losing
their grip on reality and dreaming of a world that’s simply impossible — if
gratifying.

– William Hicks

Malcolm did not attend the 1987 trial
of the civil lawsuit in which the
murderer, MacDonald, charged me with
various offenses (though not with having
published anything he deemed untrue).
Her absence placed her at a severe
disadvantage in terms of accurate
reporting, but perhaps, as a “genius,”
she
considered such mundane tasks unworthy
of her. Nonetheless, it led to
grievous errors in her writings which
you continue to disseminate (albeit in
all probability unknowingly) to this
day.

As you point out, she stated as fact
that the trial ended in a hung jury only
because one of the six jurors (whom you
label as a “crank,” based, I assume,
on Malcolm’s superficial and malicious
portrait of her) held out against
a verdict in favor of MacDonald.

Almost nothing could be further from the
truth. As deliberations began, the
judge gave to the six jurors 69 pages of
instructions, as well as a
“verdict form” that contained 37
questions. He admonished them to
answer each of the questions in order,
and not to proceed to a new one until
unanimous agreement had been reached on
the last.

As it happened, the first question on
the form had nothing to do with any of
MacDonald’s allegations against me.
Rather, it asked whether MacDonald had
“performed all of the obligations and
conditions imposed upon him under the
contract.” (The “contract” being, in
fact, a release MacDonald had signed in
which, in return for a minor portion of
the book’s proceeds, he agreed not to
bring legal action of any sort against
me, no matter what conclusions I might
reach, or might publish. How this
matter reached the trial stage despite
such a release is another story for
another time.)

On this first question, and on this
question alone, five of the jurors
eventually answered “yes,” while the
so-called “crank” said no, on the
grounds that MacDonald had contracted to
tell me the truth about the murders, and
by claiming he had not committed them,
even after having been convicted of
killing his wife and two young
daughters, he was in violation of our
agreement.

Confused by the wording of the judge’s
instructions and by the questions on
the verdict form (and with the judge
himself having departed for Hawaii as
the jury began deliberations) the
jurors were uncertain of how to
proceed. In regard to Question 1 –
whether MacDonald had fulfilled his
contractual obligations to me — the
forewoman later said to the Los Angeles
Times, “I myself changed my mind twice.”
Eventually, however, five agreed to
answer in the affirmative in order that
they might proceed to Question 2 of
the 37. One of the six would
not agree, saying,
“An author must have total freedom to
write the truth.” Malcolm so
distorts this episode — despite being
well aware of the facts — that to this
day her absolutely false version of jury
deliberation is swallowed whole by
the gullible, who presume that, because
what she wrote appeared in the New
Yorker, it must be true.

To repeat: The only disagreement among
the jurors had nothing to do with my
conduct, ethics or morality, but dealt
solely with MacDonald’s.
Nonetheless, Malcolm blithely (and
falsely) wrote, “five of the six
jurors were persuaded that a man who was
serving three consecutive life
sentences for the murder of his wife and
two small children was deserving of
more sympathy than the writer who had
deceived him.”

There is no basis in fact for this
conclusion. Indeed, it is contradicted
absolutely by all verifiable fact, the
overwhelming majority of which
Malcolm chose to omit from her
“masterpiece,” because it would have
posed a severe impediment to her
ill-considered rush to judgment. It was
only Malcolm — and not the jurors who
were present at the trial, nor any of
the journalists who attended, as she did
not — who declared that I had
“deceived”
the murderer.

“There was an enormous assumption that
we were in sympathy with MacDonald and
we were going to give him the Earth,”
the forewoman told a reporter from the
American Lawyer, after a mistrial had
been declared, adding, “It wasn’t
true.” She further stated, “I would
like to have [said] from the outset that
MacDonald got what he asked for and
McGinniss did what he said he’d do,
but … we got caught up in a thicket of
legalities.” This comment appears
nowhere in Malcolm’s “masterpiece.”

Much more profoundly important
information was available to Malcolm as
she composed her article in what you
term “cool, considered, perfect prose.”
Yet she omitted anything and everything
that would have contradicted her
preconceived notions. Her “masterpiece”
therefore, in my opinion — and as the
subject of the articles I am better
equipped to point out factual errors,
and distortion through omission than
would be readers such as yourself,
whose sole source of information about
the MacDonald matter is the flagrantly
distorted version Malcolm has purveyed
– might be more accurately viewed
as an extremely clever but malign and
meretricious piece of fiction.

– Joe McGinniss

Williamstown, Mass.

Give “Freaks” a chance
BY
JOYCE MILLMAN
(03/06/00)

Millman has articulated the
feelings of a growing group of people, a
very important demographic that includes
not only writers and critics, but a
whole cross section of viewers who seem
to be ignored by certain decision makers
at NBC. I have heard rave reviews of
“Freaks and Geeks” from the elderly to
the adolescent. This show strikes a
chord that resonates.

– R.F. Daley

Amen! My sister caught the show
when it first aired, and was
smart enough to tape the episodes.
After a few weeks of coercion (I don’t
like
television. I don’t have a
television), I watched the three that I
had missed, and I’ve managed to find a
television for the episodes that
followed.

If NBC boots the show, I think I will
lose all faith in televised
entertainment.

– Melanie Barker

Simply amazing article about
“Freaks and Geeks.” As a former geek
turned freak from high school, the show
acts like therapy for me. I just wish
the audience and network could treat it
better. Oh well, hopefully your article
will help.

– Steve Fulton

I am utterly confused by Joyce
Millman’s taste. Just a day after
championing the intelligently funny
“Freaks and Geeks” she lambastes Fox’s
“Family Guy” as “the cruddy animated
series that just won’t die.” How about
“the hysterical animated show that has
been just as screwed as ‘Freaks’ in
terms of having any type of regular time
slot and which actually assumes its
audience has both brains and a sense of
humor?”
How can you watch the show and not laugh
at Brian, the talking, Martini-drinking
dog who chases his tail while drunk on a
barstool?
My husband and I (and many of our
friends) have been eagerly awaiting this
show’s return.

– Karen Witham Lynch

How do game developers hack
it?
BY DAVID KUSHNER
(03/07/00)

I think it’s just plain wrong to
glorify the pain ION Storm has put its
employees through. It is not, and
shouldn’t be, a common practice to run
12-hour workdays seven days a week for
two or three years.

For example, the game I’m currently
working on is shipping shortly; our team
has a ratio of “first timers” vs.
“veterans” similar to the Daikatana team
and has only been in crunch mode for two
months out of the total 10 to 11 months
of development time.

You need to look for other reasons for
ION’s problems than “Those kids can’t
handle the pressure and that’s why all
of them suck.” The same “kids” happen to
do a wonderful job in other companies.
The problem with Romero’s game is much
deeper (or higher up?) than that.

– Iikka Keranen

level designer

Looking Glass Studios

Who owns your DNA?
BY ARTHUR ALLEN
(03/07/00)

The human genome is the
collective patrimony of the entire human
race. That companies have been able to
patent bits and pieces is extremely
disturbing. We have completely lost
sight of the difference between
invention and scientific discovery. To
say that someone who has sequenced a
gene has thereby “invented” it is like
saying that I have written Shakespeare’s
plays simply because I have read them.
With that kind of distortion of language
we might as well say that Columbus
invented America.

– Robert J. Yaes, M.D.

I‘m a molecular biologist who is
decidedly against the bombardment-style
patenting of every novel gene scientists
at these companies get their hands on.
They file for patents with little to no
real idea of their function other than
what they can tell directly from the
gene’s sequence. The requirements for
patents on biological sequence data
should include detailed knowledge of
structure, function and expression on
the level of patents filed for
pharmaceuticals.

That said, an institution like Miami
Children’s Hospital that has been
studying Canavan disease for years and
investing large sums of its own time and
money in elucidating its causes has a
clear right to patents on the use of the
genes it has discovered. How Allen can
in the same breath hail the discovery of
these genes and then condemn the
institution whose dedication made this
discovery possible mystifies me.

Sure, in an ideal world we would all
give our discoveries away to better help
mankind. But in this world miracles
have costs in time, money and manpower
that discoverers have a right to recoup.

– Gregory L. Dyas

Stealth merchandising

BY SHOSHANA MARCHAND
(02/29/00)

With regard to your “Stealth
Merchandising” column by Shoshana
Marchand posted on Feb. 29, we would
like to clarify why Scholastic Book
Clubs has such a wide range of offerings
to children and their parents.

The mission of the book clubs is to
promote literacy, the joy of reading for
all children and to encourage a lifelong
love of reading and book ownership.
Scholastic Book Clubs reach children who
might never have the opportunity or
desire to go to a library or bookstore
and create excitement about owning a
book and reading.

Part of promoting a love of reading is
to encourage children to practice their
reading skills, not only with the
high-quality titles Scholastic offers
through its book clubs, but also with
leisure fun books. Scholastic Book
Clubs offer non-book items in
conjunction with books to pique a
childs interest in reading.
Moreover, Scholastic Book Clubs
encourage a home-school connection
because parents can buy books that
support what their children are learning
in school and that encourage their
childrens independent reading. Parents
are never under any obligation to buy
the books. For teachers, Scholastic
Book Clubs provide a ready-made
recommended reading list to share with
parents at prices lower than any other
source.

Scholastic Inc. recognizes that literacy
is the keystone of every childs
intellectual, personal and cultural
growth and donates millions of books
annually through public, private and
nonprofit organizations.

– Judy Corman

senior vice president

Corporate
Communications & Media Relations

Scholastic Inc.

– Andrew Ricks

I agree with Hutchinson that black leaders greatly risk losing the moral high ground when they fail to condemn black-on-white hate crimes. In fighting for equal treatment under the law for all individuals, minority groups must show the moral understanding to express outrage when majority groups are attacked simply because of their ethnic or racial background.

While I also share his opinion that there has been little comment by national black leaders, Hutchinson misses the fact that the first group to make a statement about this tragedy here in Pittsburgh was Tim Stevens, the NAACP’s Pittsburgh Chapter executive director. He made it very clear that at least his local group is outraged by the actions of Ronald Taylor, even if the national NAACP has been conspicuously quiet.

– Teddy Carroll

Pittsburgh, Pa.

Unlike Earl Ofari Hutchinson, I’ve heard no silence on black-on-white crimes such as the sickening spree murders last week in Pennsylvania. Blacks, as a group, are deeply upset and embarrassed by the actions of a deranged Colin Ferguson, or this apparently equally deranged gunman. If black folks aren’t taking to the streets over the bestial acts of a few of their members perhaps it’s because no one really believes the justice system will fail in any of these instances whether from inertia or miscarriage.

– Camille Goodison

The premise of the article — that no one in the “black community” has decried the killings in Wilkinsburg (near Pittsburgh) — is false. Here in the city where the crime occurred, the lack of “outrage” seems to have more to do with a sense of sadness and of a violation of the progress that has been made in black/white relationships in Wilkinsburg. Wilkinsburg has made tremendous strides in reducing gang-related crime, in improving poorly funded schools, in creation of jobs and in making available low income housing. In the midst of all this improvement, along came this horrific crime.

That the alleged killer hated whites is probable, based on literature found in his room, and his personal history, including what he said as he shot his victim. But the overwhelming sense that one gets reading the details of the crime is that he is utterly mad. And that madness seems to stand in contrast to a longer history of white on black crimes, where those who committed such crimes were quite mainstream in their behavior.

The easy rhetoric of the author aside, his words do not resonate as true here in Pittsburgh, where blacks and whites together are mourning the killings. The Reverend Healy, a former priest killed as he sat in a restaurant, was mourned by his brother who led prayers for an end to anger and violence, for the recovery of two victims who remain hospitalized, for the family of the man who shot them and for better community support of all people touched by mental illness.

Perhaps “outrage” is not the best response. Perhaps the words of Rev. Healy, chosen before his death for his liturgy, say it best: “God is personal and like a parent; thus we are all related, as sons and daughters, as brothers and sisters, as long-lost kith and kin. Life — on Earth and beyond — is the process of discovering and responding to each other as related to and therefore, responsible for each other. The kingdom of heaven is a family reunion: memories and laughs, apologies and forgiveness, promises and hopes.”

– Timothy Murphy, M.D.

The big, less-fat bully
BY ERIC BOEHLERT
(03/04/00)

As a long-time Limbaugh listener (and no-time caller) I, too, am dismayed by Rush’s tirade against McCain. Early in the campaign, when Dubya was expected to take the nomination without any serious fight, Rush emphasized two points to McCain-supporting callers: (1) Republicans should not beat each other up in the primaries, and (2) keep your eye on the ball — the November election.
Rush has obviously abandoned these two guiding principles by putting outlandish spins on McCain (e.g., on Dubya’s BJU visit: McCain — not Dubya — is a “divider,” because he has pointed out the school’s backward racist policies and anti-Catholic stance) and by failing to see that McCain is positioned to take the decisive swing vote in November. It’s obvious that McCain would also get the Republican vote in the general election if he’s the Republican candidate. Dubya, on the other hand, is setting himself up to get a Dole-sized portion of the vote in November. Limbaugh’s eye is off the ball.

– Matt Twomey

May I suggest that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t really want a Republican to win in November? His show seems to be predicated on bashing those he disagrees with. Therefore if Gore succeeds Clinton, Rush will continue to have a good supply of Democratic red meat to feed to his fans! The problem with McCain is that his potential for success creates a problem for the right wing, in that they may need support from those they love to hate.

– Carl Caldera

The truth about the polygraph
BY SUSAN MCCARTHY
(03/02/00)

Susan McCarthy’s article reminded me of the time I “went on the box” in 1978 as screening for the “high-security” job of stock-puller in a catalog store. I passed and got the minimum-wage job; but I felt humiliated by the questions in particular and the experience as a whole. It set a bad tone for my employment and I quit two weeks later. I’m glad those tests went away (mostly) as a routine pre-employment tool.

Unfortunately, they have returned in the form of personality tests. As part of the interview process, many employers are now probing deep into our psyche to determine if we’ll be one with corporate culture, are easily led, er, managed, and so forth. As with polygraphs, there is concern as to their validity.

If personality tests are inaccurate, they do both the employer and employee a disservice. If they are accurate, they are an invasion of privacy.

– Austin W. Troxell

Lessons in consumption
BY NICK GILLESPIE
(03/06/00)

I‘ve never believed in shielding children from the big, bad world of consumerism (or, when they’re approaching their first decade, the big, bad world of sex). It’s always been about education, plain and simple.

My folks let me watch all the TV I wanted and read all the comics I could get my hands on — and while they were at it, they taught me to really pay attention to what was being said (or omitted), and how being told to buy something doesn’t mean I (or they) had to. I’m looking forward to passing on the same kind of media savvy to my kids.

– Emru Townsend

Hooked on tutoring
BY CATHERINE DAVIS
(02/29/00)

I read this week’s Mothers Who Think column, “Hooked on Tutoring,” with interest. I would like to clarify several points raised in the article about Score! and invite Catherine Davis to learn more about us:

Score! Educational Centers work with schools and teachers, not against them. In fact, many students come to Score! as a result of a school or teacher referral. Our staff collaborates with teachers, sharing student progress reports with them at a parent’s request. Schools and teachers in the communities we serve understand Score!’s role: to supplement, not replace, work that students do during the school day. By helping children to build critical basic skills, self-confidence and a love of learning, we enable them to go even farther in the classroom.

Davis points to a discrepancy between the cost advertised on our Web site, “as little as $30 a week,” and the cost she was given on the phone: $129 per month with a $100 registration fee, or $1,648 a year. Kids come to Score! twice each week for hour-long sessions. Based on our calculations, the cost comes to approximately $29 per week, below the price cited on our Web site and within reach of many families.

Score! is committed to providing its services to as many children as possible. One of our most successful locations is in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn, one of the nation’s most economically depressed neighborhoods. We offer our services at a slightly lower rate to families in the community, and the center is operating at full capacity. In addition, our newly launched site eScore.com brings free and low-cost educational resources to parents and kids worldwide.

Score! is not a chain of franchises. All centers are wholly owned by Score! Learning Inc., enabling us to guarantee uniformly high quality services at more than 100 locations nationwide.

Score! applauds teachers for the good work they do every day to educate the nation’s children. We offer them our unequivocal support in this mission.

– Robert Waldron

chief executive officer, Score! Learning Inc.

Teachers themselves have collectively done a bang-up job at undermining their own authority and expertise. Davis has conveniently forgotten that most of those parents electing to have their children tutored were themselves once students of public schools. If they do not wish to abandon their offsprings’ education to the tender mercies of that system, one can hardly blame them, since they do know whereof they speak.

Indeed, the entire article was a delicately veiled attack on the judgment of parents. What Davis really wants to do, evidently, is flame those no-good parents who won’t let teachers play god with their children. But since most people won’t sit still to be told how invalid their experiences are, Davis instead portrays parents as dupes of tutoring services. Parents, she argues, are well-meaning fools taken in by the evils of corporate tutoring.

Perhaps that is true. Perhaps tutoring services are nothing more than leeches attached to parents’ pocketbooks. Perhaps parents who recourse to supplemental instruction are the dupes of tutoring services. At least that’s better than being the dupe of an arrogant, incompetent, corrupt school system.

– Vanessa Layne

You can eat very fine food in London, but it is all a) outrageously expensive and b) presented as a favor to the dining public. Celebrity chefs demand celebrity prices for the honor of dining in their establishments and being seen in the latest place. People here still don’t understand that service is not a bad thing, and that providing good service can be a godsend.

— Savana Burke

My experience in England five years ago was similar to Emily Wise Miller’s: bad-to-indifferent food that seemed intent on taking all the joy out of eating. No wonder the Brits drink so much beer! Better to drown their culinary sorrows. Pub food reached its nadir at an otherwise charming establishment in the Lake District. I don’t remember what I had (that’s a bad sign right there), but two of my hiking companions ordered the special: lasagna. Cold, tired and hungry, they were grinning with anticipation as two steaming dishes were set in front of them. They quickly dug in and discovered why the dish was “special”: No pasta! It was a lasagna in name only with not a noodle in sight. We were all laughing too hard to complain. And what would have been the point?

Like Miller, we eventually found spice-deprivation relief at Indian restaurants in Scotland and London. Those delightful establishments started me on a love affair Indian cuisine that continues to this day, and for that I am very grateful.

— Curt Milton

The Brits have been bashed for their food long enough! Last fall, I spent several weeks in the North Yorkshires region — hours away from the “world class restaurants” of London — and ate well (and affordably) every day, enjoying meals of tender chicken in creamy chive sauce wrapped in fine flaky pastry, grilled fresh vegetables brushed with olive oil and herbs, flaky fish poached in white wine and yes, even an exquisite sausage roll. Just as you wouldn’t expect fine cuisine from your neighborhood bar, you shouldn’t expect greatness in a small town pub and take the food offered there as representative of all restaurants in a country, trashing an entire nation’s food culture.

— Jessica Chapel

There has been a huge change in British food within the past six years! Magazines such as BBC’s “Good Food,” Waitrose’s “Food Illustrated” and popular chef-fronted television shows demonstrate Britain’s new enthusiasm for good food. Thanks to the EEC, the produce in supermarkets is fresher, far more plentiful and cheaper that what I can buy in my supermarket in Southern California. New British cooking has taken this on board and adopted the best of European, African and Indian cooking as well. Most restaurants and many pubs have embraced this and are doing it wonderfully.

By the way, I’ve never eaten a “blood” pudding (more commonly known as black pudding) in my life. And tea and sausages are a real treat.

— S. Hamlyn

I wonder if Miller has spent any time in the restaurants of much of the United States. As a foreigner, I am frequently appalled by what is served up. But rather than complaining that American cooking is all no good, I take refuge in the fact that in the States, as everywhere, really interesting food tends to be available in the big cities, and places in between can be a bit of a disappointment, culinarily speaking.

— John Beaglehole

Hands off Harry Potter!
BY CHRIS GREGORY
(03/03/00)

I used to refer to myself as a feminist. After all, I believe in equal rights. Then I watched “feminists” pounce like understimulated kittens on every innocuous issue possible — and now Harry Potter? A book which I plan to read to my daughters because of the intelligent Hermione, formidable McGonnagall and unflappable Sprout? I’m sick of nitpicky whistleblowers giving feminists a bad name. Lay off Potter and lay into something valid. There’s no shortage of valuable feminist issues, find yourself one.

— J. Melmed

Poor Chris Gregory. If she had done her homework and paid attention to the previous Harry Potter reviews, she would know that today, good literature depends on two simple factors.

One: Agreeability. Be sure that all characters are acceptable to all people, everywhere. While this tends to eliminate the tradition of conflict and plot, it is essential to being well-liked by even the most reactionary, self-righteous dunderhead.

Two: Equality. The book’s characters must, when plotted on a graph with factors such as sex, values, likes, dislikes, etc., present a perfectly straight line, even if this would never happen in the real world.

Once Gregory understands this, I am sure she will, as I do, excitedly anticipate Harry’s next adventure: “Harry Potter and the Mathematically Balanced Distribution of Sex, Class, Race and Creed.”

— T. Faust

Thanks to Chris Gregory for setting the record straight about the alleged sexism in Harry Potter. As the mother of a role-playing-mad 6-year-old, I have to say that J.K. Rowling has rocked my world. When we play Pooh, I have to be Kanga. When we play Pokimon, I have to be Ash’s midriff-sporting girlfriend, a character so vapid I refuse to remember her name. When we play Star Wars, it’s Leia (not bad) or Amidala (wicked bad — sometimes I beg to be R2D2 instead).

But when we play Harry, I can be Hermione, Harry’s super-smart dust-it-up equal, or Professor McGonagall, if I’m in the mood to lay down the law, or Ginny Weasley, if I feel like sneaking in a little maternal affection under the guise of schoolgirl crush, or my favorite (and one Gregory forgot to mention): Mrs. Weasley, whose dishes begin to “quietly wash themselves in the sink” at the wave of her wand. Who says fantasy is just for kids?

— Tracy Mayor

Stupid Patient of the Year
BY J.B. ORENSTEIN, M.D.
(03/03/00)

I read Dr. J.B. Orenstein’s article in Friday’s Salon, and I’m still laughing. I, too, am a pediatrician in an emergency department and I see all manner of abuses of the system. Just today, a woman came in from her pediatrician’s office. She didn’t feel like staying in the waiting room until her child’s scheduled appointment, so she decided to be seen in emergency … for a cold of four days’ duration. And that’s a very mild example.

The United States desperately needs a national health system, so that children’s medical care is properly funded, coupled with oversight to strongly discourage parents from abusing the system with 3 a.m. ambulance rides for week-old earaches. More carrot and more stick.

— Michael Treece, M.D.

I, too, work in an emergency department and would like to see an award given to all the people who tell us they have a family doctor, but have come to the emergency room because they need to have whatever benign procedure done (like their blood pressure checked or a sliver removed) and their doctor is “too busy.” These same people then rant and rave that they must wait, possibly hours, to be seen. No matter how we explain that the sickest people get seen first, these people do not comprehend that they do not need to be in the emergency department and are wasting health care time and dollars. The man who came in recently to have a plantar wart removed gets an honorable mention.

— Name withheld at writer’s request

I‘ve been an emergency room nurse for 15 years and I must confess that there is nothing my co-workers and I like more than a good story. However, the tone of this article was full of anger and disdain for all the “stupid” patients that come in with “stupid” complaints. Is this guy really a doctor? I sure wouldn’t want him cutting on me.

— David Sexton, R.N.
San Francisco General Hospital

The only thing stupid about these patients is they let this doctor examine them. He should find a new line of work or find some compassion in his heart for his patients.

— Dee Cocos

The tyranny of “Abercrappie”
BY DAMIEN CAVE
(03/03/00)

Good lord! Is Abercrombie & Fitch marketing to teens?! With all those bare chests and butts, I thought their whole campaign was targeting the lucrative gay guy market. Come to think of it, you could probably discourage kids from wanting the overpriced clothes by telling them that, since homophobia is still a stronger motivating force than fashion.

Therese Littleton

– Greg Price

This article sheds light on the negative impact Jesse Jackson and other political leaders have on people like myself, who learned how to use computers much like some of my classmates learned how to play basketball: in the inner city and the depths of poverty. I am now a professional computer programmer in the finance industry and the most difficult problem I have is convincing some suburban white kids that I am as clever as they, if not more, and getting respect accordingly. When the media suggests that technical skill in contemporary high technology is a race thing and not a class thing, these suburban kids in my job interview may feel compelled to pass me up for someone they consciously or unconsciously feel is genetically capable of programming a computer.

To me computers are like basketball courts: These boxes are the unbiased judges of my skill level and too few people in hiring and management positions are not able to ask the box how good I am. It is too bad I can’t play on TV for all to see me slam dunk. But the Internet’s World Wide Web is the next best thing.

– Bryan Wilhite

The new callousness
BY ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
(03/02/00)

I‘m so glad to see you once again carry an article written by Huffington. Although we probably come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, I find her to be the only voice out there focusing our attention on the growing underclass, our war on our children and the growing great divide between those amassing great fortunes and everyone else.

– Wayne Fuller

Sooner or later, some commentators finally get it. Arianna Huffington has broken with the neo-cons and joined the harm-reduction mind-set in her approach our justice system. You go girl!

– John Davis

Maybe Proposition 21 is a measure of prevention. I don’t know how to justify letting kids commit adult crimes without the responsibility of enduring adult punishment. How is it that a car-jacking 17-year-old is a kid who needs some compassion and guidance, while an 18-year-old is a predator? Is it compassionate to let kids believe that criminal behavior doesn’t have dire consequences? What greater disservice can you do a young person than let him grow up without a clear understanding of his responsibility to respect the people around him?

– Kevin Tudish

Lord have mercy, Arianna Huffington is becoming one of the leading voices of reason on the planet, circa 2000. We are truly in Bizarro World now.

– John Sharque

Dems debate while Republicans take late night
BY MAX GARRONE
(03/02/00)

Having spent 30-plus years in and around the field of employment recruiting, I tend to view presidential politics differently, perhaps, than the electorate in general. In my mind, we are collectively conducting an employment search for a senior executive. Unfortunately, political pundits notwithstanding, nobody has educated us on how to do this. We keep getting lost in the woods as we become preoccupied with such titillating but inconsequential nonsense as implied bigotry, facial mannerisms and who has suffered most for his country!

Somebody, sometime has got to ask each one of the candidates the following question: “What is your understanding of the word ‘govern’? Please give two or three specific and concrete examples of past experiences that demonstrate your ability to do so.”

It would seem that in spite of our lack of acumen, over the last couple of centuries we’ve often gotten lucky and hired the right guy. But, as casino operators know, luck eventually expends itself.

– Charles Pletcher

Two for the price of one
BY DAVID HOROWITZ
(02/28/00)

Pardon my simplicity, but wouldn’t the primary system be somewhat more fair to voters if they all happened at the same time? The current system seems unfair to voters in states with later primaries, because their candidate could be so far behind in the delegate count that their state’s primary is a pointless contest. If it were up to me, there would be three or four nationally televised debates, followed by a three-day period during which everyone would vote, and that would be that. This would also probably save money for the candidates because there would be limited whistle-stop campaigning outside the biggest states. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

– Rich Engel

Primary suspect
BY ANTHONY YORK

(02/26/00)

The big problem with open primaries is the danger of mischief-making. Does anyone honestly believe that all of those Democrats who voted for McCain in Michigan will be with him in November if he is the nominee? If either party has a consensus candidate while the other party has a contested nomination, it is too easy to influence who the other party chooses.

Despite the mischief-making in the Big Two, the biggest danger I see is to the minor parties. Imagine Democrats voting in large numbers to choose a socialist as the Libertarian Party Candidate or Republicans voting to make a big polluter the candidate of the Green Party.

The same goes for statewide races. In the Senate race in California this year, Feinstein is running essentially unopposed for the Democratic nomination, while the Republicans have a battle. In my estimation Tom Campbell is the strongest candidate in a decidedly uphill battle against Feinstein. What if polls showed Feinstein in a close race with Campbell, but showed her swamping another candidate? What would stop Feinstein backers from supporting the weaker candidate in massive numbers?

If we are going to have political parties, then only the votes of people who have actually declared themselves as members should be able to vote in the primaries.

– Ed Salas

Kiss off, Kate
BY CINTRA WILSON
(03/02/00)

Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying everything I had been wondering about whenever I read the New York Times pieces about the revival of “Kiss Me, Kate” at my West Hartford, Conn., breakfast table. Why any woman in her right mind in the 21st century would pay serious cash to go to a musical that included the heroine being physically humiliated and later singing a song about women being simple is beyond me. Adapter John Guare’s gyrations in print about the sexism weren’t convincing. While I can’t comment about the lack of subtlety with which the play was directed, perhaps we should pull only what’s salvageable (in this case, the music) and discard the rest. It would be kinder to both the playwrights and the audience. I’m sick of being told that I lack a sense of humor (Wilson’s analogy about black people is right on the mark) about how women are depicted in various cultural media, so I basically just stay away. It’s easier on the psyche and cheaper to boot.

– Bev Arcaro

Unlike Cintra Wilson, I thought Broadway’s production of “Kiss Me, Kate” was outstanding. The show is 50 years old and is much fresher than the “new” production of “The Scarlett Pimpernell” I saw the next night.
Cole Porter, excellent tunes and lyrics (and double entendres) that are funny five decade later — it doesn’t get much better than that. Makes me wonder how much Andrew Lloyd Webber people will be listening to 40 years from now. Not much, I’ll bet.

Sorry the rude gestures offended you, Cintra. Lighten up.

– Woody Browne

I like ‘em short
BY JULIE MANIS
(02/29/00)

As a woman who is 5 feet, 1 inch tall, I must agree that I also like ‘em short. There is nothing like being able to walk down the street with your boyfriend with your arm around his shoulder. Anything more than 5 inches taller than me is stretching it, as it were. My current boyfriend is over 6-feet tall, and I stand on my tiptoes a lot.

I’m surprised that the author didn’t point out the statistical evidence that shows that shorter people in general actually live longer. This would seem to make them even more appealing as partners.

– Jane Creighton

Cher
BY CINTRA WILSON
(02/22/00)

As talented as Cher might be, her best days as an actress are behind her. After way too many plastic surgeries, this woman with her once-beautiful bone structure has morphed herself into something that looks like a monkey in a wind tunnel. She may go on singing; I hope she does. But she’s sure to find that the ability to create facial expressions would have been more beneficial to her acting career than a lineless face.

– Eve Golden

A 37-year-old man who lives 3,000 miles from me and who I’ve never met before is describing me perfectly. I am such a clichi I could puke.

– Julie Branco

I firmly agree with Rasenberger on the envy and homicidal urge to kill those in their 20s! As a fellow “Sucker,” born in 1964, I really blame Styx, Barry Manilow, and Air Supply for making us the luckless SOB’s that we are! I mean, any generation that can remember 8-tracks and 45s seems doomed to mediocrity. Thanks for your acumen and insight into this blight!

– Bob Partain

His generation would suck — that is if he had one. It is impossible to define the parameters of a generation. While some, like Gen X, have come to have popular meaning and accepted parameters, this makes them no more or less valid than any other proposed generational group. Any work or study that attempts to discuss the mood, ideals and tendencies of a generation is bunk.

The sad part about discussions regarding supposed generations is that it assumes that age is a major determining factor of political, economic, or social ideas and tastes. The fact is, in the U.S. there is no better indicator of attitudes than income (and education that is a function of income). We are a society with distinctly different classes that think and behave differently.

– Andrew Shepard

The problem with Jim Rasenberger’s “genvy” article is that the standard by which he measures “Gen X” is still that of the ’80s: making a killing. What he fails to notice is that this generation is as spiritually and morally hollow as any in history — a lack of notice which indeed reveals his membership in “Generation Suck.”

– Matt Hutton

News flash for you, Jim: A lot of the new Internet money is going to members of your “Generation Suck.” Michael Dell is 34. Jeff Bezos is 35. Steve Case is 41. Whatever sucks here, it isn’t our generation.

– Alan Cherry

I was born in 1963 and will turn 37 in two weeks. All my life I’ve wondered why I was lumped together with boomers who came of age in the ’60s since I was very aware that I had missed out on that. Then Douglas Coupland (who is two years older than me) wrote Generation X, and I finally thought, “this is who I and my friends are” only to see the term applied to kids 10 years younger. So you see, we even had our own name stolen from us. No question, our generation sucks!

– John D. Childs

Rasenberger’s right on, though as a 20-something myself I feel even more strongly the desire to smack a 20-something. Although in computers myself, I steadfastly fight for free software and have refused my entire life to write proprietary code (i.e., commercial software) even spending much of my youth removing copy-restriction schemes. So I watch people my age (21) today who are millionaires, far worse programmers than myself, but they are so bloody selfish that they become actively engaged in proprietary protocol schemes. We free software zealots have to pass up this generational wealth to pursue what we feel to be a moral imperative, knowing full well that at the end of the day, we may have saved the computer world from closed source proprietary software, monopolies, authoritarian laws, software patents, etc., but we’ll be waiting tables for those kids who sold out.

– Jason Kroll

Hitler’s apologist
BY HEATHER WORLD
(03/01/00)

I was rather shocked to read the following sentences in World’s article about David Irving: “There is no ‘smoking gun’ blueprint for gas chambers at Auschwitz. And of course [Irving's] right.” These are fairly outrageous statements, since critical examinations of the Auschwitz blueprints have clearly shown gas chambers. They are not labeled as such, of course; the Nazis were far too cunning for that.

Historians studying the blueprints uncovered this ruse by locating those aspects of the unlabeled drawings that proved the structures could not have been anything but gas chambers. The most obvious example is the elaborate ventilation apparatus. Another is the tunnel system connecting the structures to the crematoria.

– Rob Anderson

For those who may be swayed by the pseudo-history of the holocaust deniers: remember that of all the thousands of Nazis, perpetrators and Nazi hangers-on that were tried after WWII, not one used the “denial defense!” Most of them used the familiar, “I was only following orders” defense. One of the reasons I so despise David Irving and his ilk is that the holocaust is one of the most documented events in history. To quarrel with eyewitnesses — both victims and perpetrators — is most repugnant.

– William C. Rees

I found Heather World’s Account of the David Irving “holocaust denial” trial to be insightful and compelling. Again Salon provides an insider’s perspective on one of today’s most important and most overlooked news stories. This story chilled me to the bone.

– Alexander Hauschild

California Ethnic and Mulitcultural Archives

University of California, Santa Barbara

Direct to you
BY DENA BUNIS
(02/23/00)

I recently asked my doctor what he thought of this disgusting practice, and he nearly went through the roof. He told me that drug companies spend $13,000 per year per doctor in advertising. In his opinion, this was the main reason why the same drugs cost one half the U.S. price in Canada and one quarter the U.S. price in Mexico. The drug companies claim they need the high prices to pay for research, but the fact is that they spend more money for advertising than for research. We are paying to be hustled!

There was a time not long ago when manufacturers of prescription drugs were called “ethical drug companies” to distinguish them from makers of over the counter remedies and snake-oil salesmen. That distinction has unfortunately been lost.

– George Cunha

StopDrLaura.com
BY DONNA LADD
(03/01/00)

“Dr.” Laura is anti-gay? My, how things change. When she was getting started, she would occasionally say things about gays that actually sounded somewhat positive — including the obvious fact that gays almost never have kids they later abandon. I guess this was before she discovered the lucre in pandering to the extreme right-wing.

– Steven Maurer

These gay activists seem to have more hate inside them than Dr. Laura. I’m tired of radicals on both sides of the gay issue trying to speak for the majority. When will the public stand up to these verbal terrorists?

–Scott Lunsford

Dr. Laura brings a healthy perspective into the homosexual debate. I’ve not known her to demean and bash gays. She may have an opinion about the cause of homosexuality and opinions about the lifestyle — that’s OK. Should the issue of homosexuality come up on the show it will be informative to hear her perspective. There are always two sides to every story. So let’s hear it.

– D. Waterhouse

eFaust eFoiled
BY STEPHEN LEMONS
(02/25/00)

EBay claims it cannot allow Jones to sell his soul because it is “a part of his body,” the sale of which is prohibited on their site. Now this is rather ridiculous, as anybody whose ever been to Sunday school can tell you. If they are going with the story that the soul exists, they have to follow doctrine. Doctrine says it is not a part of the body, and, doctrine indicates, it may be sold. The only way they could coherently forbid its sale is to declare that it flat-out doesn’t exist. This, however, eBay is not willing to do. Why not? Perhaps it is all those people out there who believe in angels and like buying vintage PEZ dispensers online.

– Judy Kellner

Funny article. Not only did I sell my soul on Amazon Auctions for $31.00 on August 4, 1999, I provided the buyer with a certificate of authenticity.

I guess those eBay people just aren’t very open minded.

– Andisheh Nouraee