Guns don’t kill black people, other blacks do
BY DAVID HOROWITZ
(08/16/99)
I thought David Horowitz’s column on Aug. 16 might be a chance to
critically explore the reasoning of the NAACP’s decision to sue the gun
industry. But the NAACP suit is just a device for Horowitz’s rambling
diatribe about how racism is a collective hallucination of black people used
to deflect responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
Too bad. There was an intelligent argument to be made against the way civil
rights organizations spend money and clout in quixotic legal tussles while
problems within the black community continue to fester. Another possible
issue is how demonizing the tobacco, gun and entertainment industries may
decrease the feeling of personal responsibility in all sectors of our society.
Yet another is how America has switched from hero worship to victim worship
in the last 30 years, and how that leads to a culture of learned
helplessness.
But had Horowitz chosen to take on any of those angles, someone might
have demanded cogent thinking and a well-structured argument. It’s an
unfortunate fact that discussion of racial issues is left to the ranters on
all sides.
– Alicia R. Montgomery
A constitutionally protected right to bear arms should not be a free
ticket to capitalize on a vulnerable market with a violent product. It is
not inappropriate for any of us to to attempt to force those who make
weapons to act responsibly.
Anyone who would question a group’s desire to call those who profit from
their misery to account for their actions either misses the point
entirely or has ulterior motives.
– Ned Landin
It’s about time we stopped sweeping the truth under the rug. If we
finally admit to these problems in the black community, we might some
day arrive at some meaningful solutions.
– Alan Davis
First of all, it remains to be seen whether the gun industry’s hands-off
attitude regarding the distribution of its lethal product has indeed been
irresponsible. If the threat of a lawsuit for forces the industry to police
itself to prevent its guns, especially handguns, from somehow escaping the
legitimate market and finding their way into illegal distribution channels,
then we’ll all be better off.
But Horowitz attempts to have both ways in his piece as he discusses the
plight of blacks. In one instance, he says black leaders aren’t doing enough
to address issues their affecting communities, such as drugs and violence.
Then, he points out that “heavier penalties (for crack cocaine dealers) were
originally demanded by black leaders who claimed that crack was associated
with street violence in the black community and the white criminal justice
system did not care enough about its destructive consequences to make the
penalties harsh.” So which is it? Are black leaders in psychological denial
about the crime problem or aren’t they? Or are they raising legitimate
questions about how the policing in their communities is being carried out?
Horowitz makes the mistake, like so many other white conservative
commentators, of assuming blacks are waiting for that mythical black leader
to bring word down from the mountaintop on what needs to be done and how to
get there. Years before white kids began slaughtering other white kids with
semi-automatic gunfire in suburban communities, black kids were being killed
one at a time by other black kids on city playgrounds at across the country
for equally stupid reasons. But black parents didn’t sit on their hands
waiting for a black savior to tell them what to do. They organized. There have been numerous “Stop the Violence”-type campaigns in cities across the country.
Horowitz essentially dismisses as irrelevant the history of blacks in
this country. Why is it history matters to every other group except
blacks? Jews can vow to never forget the Holocaust, and rightfully so. But let a black person mention slavery or the effect of the subsequent 100 years of Jim Crow laws and practices,
and watch the eyes roll. Horowitz and others speak as though the slate was wiped clean the very
moment slavery was abolished, legalized segregation was wiped out and the
1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted. They tend to suggest that once blacks
overcame more than a century of legalized white oppression, blacks were
accepted as first-class citizens with loving arms by the white majority.
Well, such thinking is intellectually dishonest, and Horowitz knows it.
To be sure, traditional black leadership has at times appeared to be out of
step with the times and slow to react to newer challenges. But Horowitz’s
commentary reads more like an indictment of blacks than as an
indictment of the contemporary civil rights movement. And he replaces the
idea of today’s black struggles being linked exclusively to white oppression
with an equally dubious claim that white society can do, and perhaps has
done, no wrong when it comes to blacks.
– Bob Campbell
Rochester Hills, Mich.
Horowitz calmly cast out a canard commonly found on all the neo-Nazi Web sites: Although blacks make up only 12 percent of the population they are responsible for 46 percent of the violent crime. Horowitz is repeating a lie, and he should do better research.
The FBI publishes the Uniform Crime Reports annually. It is the only comprehensive crime report in America, and is widely quoted and widely misunderstood. The UCR does not report that blacks are responsible for 46 percent of violent crime because the report deals with arrests, not convictions. Horowitz is corrupting our constitutional presumption of innocence.
The UCR for 1997, the most recent year for which data is available, states that blacks were arrested for 41.1 percent of all violent crime included in the report, but it makes no presumptions about the ratio of blacks in the general populations of the areas reporting.
There are 17,000 arresting agencies in the United States, serving a population (in 1997) of about 254 million. However, the UCR report for “Total Arrests — Distribution by Race” includes only 9,271 agencies serving a total population of 183 million. The FBI does not tell us which agencies are included in the report. If the agencies included in the report were tilted toward police departments in large urban centers, such as Chicago, Los Angeles or St. Louis, the ratio of blacks in the general population would be much greater than 12 percent, and the violent crime committed by blacks would not look so wildly out of proportion to their numbers.
Surely Horowitz can operate a calculator. If he divided the total population included in the report (183,239,000) by the number of agencies included in the report (9,271), he would find the average population served by these agencies is 19,765 people. Since the average population served by each of the 17,000 agencies in the country is less than 15,000 people Horowitz would discover that the report is indeed tilted toward larger urban centers.
Since blacks make up a much greater proportion of the population in large urban centers, blacks being arrested for 41.1 percent of violent crime may not be out of proportion to their numbers. Indeed, it may well be that whites are arrested at a greater rate than their proportion in these urban populations.
– R. F. Gilmore
San Diego
DAVID HOROWITZ RESPONDS:
I didn’t take my statistics from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. I used the Bureau of Justice Statistics (see Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1996). These numbers represent convictions, not just arrests. Moreover they represent state statistics. State courts handle 96 percent of all felony convictions in the United States. The remaining 4 percent handled in federal courts involve mainly nonviolent offenses, such as drug trafficking or fraud. The Bureau of Justice Statistics show that blacks commit 46 percent of violent crime.
TV can be a good parent
BY ARIEL GORE
(08/16/99)
and
Take my TV!
BY JACQUES LESLIE
(08/17/99)
Am I really expected to believe that there are no other choices between 1)
constant interaction with one’s child and 2) parking 18-month-olds in front
of the television? Am I really expected to believe that having pediatricians pay attention to
their young patients’ television-watching habits, as they might their
consumption of junk foods — even if the doctors have a heart-to-heart with the
parents when either activity seems excessive — is going to lead to witch-hunts
against TV-watching parents? Ninety-eight percent of American households have at least one
television. How, exactly, could TV watchers become marginalized and
demonized enough to become victims of the judicial system?
I’m just as horrified about “welfare reform”
and economic exploitation as Gore, but I don’t see what any of this really
has to do with infants watching television. What’s the matter with parking
your kids in the living room with blocks (and later crayons, then library books, then chemistry sets), when both you and the child are tired of dealing with
each other? You can buy blocks and crayons by the case for what your cable
bill costs each month. Both very poor and very rich children have been known
to entertain themselves for hours building tent cities with a couple of
blankets and the kitchen table. I used to do that myself — frequently while
my single, factory-worker mother was in the living room watching some boring old TV show.
If you want to argue that there’s no reason some of your kids’ time shouldn’t
be spent in front of the television, then do so. But don’t try to claim that
there are no other choices for poor and working class women, and that it’s
middle-class presumption to suggest otherwise. Poor and working class women
make choices from the available options about what their children do for fun, just like middle-class women do — though, usually, from more options. Anyone can debate any of
the choices, but let’s not claim that these women are too passive to make them.
– Doris Dungey
Television sucks! I don’t have one — but if I did, and if I had children, I wouldn’t let my children get near a TV. I don’t have any children because, as Ariel also states, we don’t have “government salaries for stay-at-home moms.” Well, to me that means
I’d better keep working until I can afford to have children — because when I
do, you’d better believe that I’m going to stay home and raise them myself,
not have some electronic box do it for me.
– Sara Kingsley
Although it is true that young tots should not be exposed to long
periods in front of the television, let’s not forget that there are many
choices and as always falls to the individual parents to monitor. You
can’t ignore that children who grow up watching educational television
at the preschool period, such as “Sesame Street” or “Blues Clues,” do better
when they begin school.
– Ann Lyons
Hubbardston, Mass.
I wonder if Jacques Leslie has ever had to care for children full-time for any extended period of time? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that hours on end of horrible TV and no human interaction would be bad for a child. However, a half-hour or hour of decent programming certainly doesn’t equate to giving up satisfaction in an unmediated world. Letting a toddler watch a half-hour of TV isn’t mutually exclusive with hours of book-reading and outdoor-playing in the same day.
– Mary Kay Hannah
Giving it up
BY LILY BURANA
(08/14/99)
and
Heavy petting
BY LISA TOMER
(08/14/99)
I had to laugh when I read “Giving it up,” about the virtues of celibacy
for women. Williams talks about how she developed an identity
outside of male-female relationships during her periods of celibacy, and
she’s absolutely right.
This happened to me, but not by choice. Like many linear-thinking and
awkward-acting guys, I have lived most of my life in a state of sexual
near-starvation. There is an upside: Not getting laid forces you to find hobbies and develop
your individuality. But it’s a bitter irony to read about this –
celibacy sure wasn’t my choice! Men don’t have all the cards in their hand — it’s women who decide who gets laid and who isn’t worthy.
– Rob Freeman
As a born-again Christian I found it tremendously
exciting to find simpatico beliefs in the non-Christian media. I have
enjoyed the celibate life by choice for more than eight years. My reasons do not
include any kind of competition with others for the “higher spiritual
plane.” They are quite simply that once you fall in love with the
Lord, you don’t want to be unfaithful to Him. There are no guarantees for any Christian –
or anyone else — of a lasting relationship these days unless the rules are
observed His way. Celibacy is part of holiness. This way, relationships are
much more balanced and simplified, and more permanent aspects of a lasting
union can be explored purely and without hormonal deception.
– Nancy Dronko
Names that live in infamy
BY DAVID BRIN
(08/13/99)
We learn enormous amounts from reading about those on the margins
of society. Norman Mailer taught us more about what our society was
about through his journalism and reporting than any novelist of his
age. As has Tom Wolfe; Albert Camus was another. All wrote about those on the margins, as well as those who had been marginalized.
If anyone deserves the infamy award it might be Charles Manson
and his “family” — yet Ed Sander’s brilliant portrait of this madman and of
those who would become his followers (in “The Family”) has seldom been equaled in its
insight into those on the farthest reaches of society, those
who are indeed mad. Sanders forces us to confront the consequences of
allowing a few to be completely cut off from the rest of society.
Through Sanders we understand Manson, and those who would do his
bidding.
We read about the infamous because it, hopefully, gives us insight –
and insight can give us some knowledge about how to head off
similar problems in the future.
Also: To have included Kevin Mitnick’s name and crime along with those of
Theodore Kaczynski,the Oklahoma City terrorists and killer Mark David Chapman shows
absolutely no perspective, no ability to discern nuance. Perhaps Brin
should just stick to writing about worlds far into the future rather
than commenting on the real one.
– Lewis Z. Koch
Who owns the Columbine tragedy?
BY DAVE CULLEN
(08/16/99)
It escapes me why newspapers and television stations from afar sent
correspondents to Columbine to cover the shootings. What does some
reporter from New York or Miami or San Antonio know about the place
and the people there? What local angle is to be found? All you get
is a bunch of out-of-towners clumsily negotiating the turf, exponentially
adding to the mob of people and, ultimately, producing the same darned story as everybody else?
If these people would separate themselves from their egos and really
think about what they’re doing, they wouldn’t send their crews. What if it
were their kids’ school? Would they want dozens of helicopters in the sky,
a throng of yahoos from 3,000 miles away asking them stupid questions and
cameras capturing every little tear that falls?
As a former police beat reporter at a large South Florida daily, I
hated ganging up on people during their private moments of grief. I
remember the time I was steeling myself to knock on the door of a family
whose child had drowned in their back yard pool. A car zoomed into the
driveway, a man got out and ran to the front door. It would have been a
perfect opportunity to swoop in, but I held back. Good thing. I found out
it was the child’s father. I got in my car and left. I missed “the story”
but felt good that I hadn’t interrupted the man and his wife’s first
private moments of grief together.
Should reporters and editors be more sensitive to victims’ needs? Yes.
Will they? I doubt it. These stories are just too juicy and easy to cover.
– Donna Pazdera
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
I found Dave Cullen’s story to be a
wonderful example of media hypocrisy. Cullen is quick to point out that
the anonymous “media” has so far owned this story, and now that the
school wants to take it back, “the media” is not willing. Who is
this shadow group that Cullen alludes to? He tells us that Rick Kaufman, the
district communications director, speaks for the school, but when it
comes time to name “the media,” Cullen backs down and cites “a TV
executive” or “a senior national print correspondent.”
Come on; tell us who these gluttonous media folk are — these anonymous people who refuse to give back what they have taken.
– Mike Hedblom
Janet Malcolm
BY CRAIG
SELIGMAN
(02/29/00)
In your mesmerizing
analysis of the career of Janet Malcolm,
you unfortunately
perpetuate a significant factual error
published in “The Journalist and the
Murderer.”
Indeed, her “masterpiece,” as you call
it, is riddled with errors of fact.
In the 1989 epilogue to “Fatal Vision”
– still in print and readily
available — I enumerate a number of
them, but here I shall focus only on the
one that you have chosen to promulgate.
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.
Why are black leaders silent on black hate crimes?
BY EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON
(03/06/00)
Right on! How refreshing it is to see a black person (other than myself) point out the hypocrisy of black leaders. This latest racially motivated assault by a black person on white persons should have been a prime opportunity for these leaders to demonstrate their commitment to equal treatment and equal consideration. If this were a white-on-black incident, there would be no end to the very public and grandstanding demands for justice. By remaining silent on this revolting incident, black leaders unwittingly empower our enemies, and prove their own inadequacy in moving the struggle for equal rights forward into the next century.
– 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
Not my cup of tea
BY EMILY WISE MILLER
(03/03/00)
Ah, poor Emily! She, like so many other visitors to the British Isles, was tricked into thinking that the word “restaurant” in Britain means “a place where someone knows/cares about cooking.” Sadly, people here in the U.K. have still not grasped the idea of decent food at decent prices. There are a few exceptions but generally one is hard-pressed to find anything approaching the quality of food in North America and continental Europe.
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
Is the digital divide a black thing?
BY LEE HUBBARD
(03/02/00)
To speculate upon and lament a possible “digital divide between blacks and whites” is in a sense absurd. To put a laptop in every black home seems an inferior option than that of cultivating the intellectual capital that is necessary for technological progress. In any given year, only a handful of blacks earn doctorates in the intellectual disciplines such as mathematics, physics and evolutionary biology. This is the real scandal. It is ultimately insights found in these disciplines and others that form the foundation of technology. Lament this, unless of course one thinks that blacks can only be end-users of the ideas the fuel progress — give me a break with this digital divide nonsense.
– 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
My generation sucks!
BY JIM RASENBERGER
(03/01/00)
I am the 20-something Gen Xer that Rasenberger’s genvying.
I’m the white girl driving to work in an SUV to an Internet start-up — working in marketing, no less — stopping on the way for a (non-fat) latte while talking on the cell phone (did I mention it’s light blue?) I shop at Banana Republic (online), take way too much Diet Fuel, occasionally watch the WB, eat sushi, moved to California after graduating from a big state school in the Midwest, still refer to the males I date as “guys,” have credit card debt despite being overpaid and just recently stopped drinking vodka tonics after watching a movie in which someone points out to the Chloe Sevigny character that vodka tonics are the just-out-of-college-and-moved-to-the-big-city girl drink.
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
