Correction In "Author, author!" Jonathan Broder's July 8, 1998 piece on the disputed authorship of the so-called "talking points," there were three minor factual errors. When Monica Lewinsky gave Linda Tripp a ride home on Jan. 14, Tripp was not Lewinsky's Pentagon colleague, but her former colleague. Tripp had not been wearing an FBI wire for several days previous to that date. Finally, Tripp met Lewinsky for lunch two days later, not the next day. Salon regrets these errors, which we have corrected in the story.
_______________ A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEAN BY PETER KURTH (07/01/98)
	Peter Kurth attempts to make John Irving seem like a vicious person, a sort of Green Mountain David Duke. But all he succeeds in doing is to reveal himself as being self-absorbed, self-righteous and absurd. Kurth doesn't seem to know much about political theory. Irving objects to Act 60, a scheme of public school financing whereby local moneys are collected by the state and distributed among the various school districts equally. On this basis he is tarred as a "mean-spirited, right-wing nut" and a "capitalist windbag." It seems to me that you could believe in both socialism and local control of government enterprises without any inconsistency whatsoever. Wouldn't a true capitalist want to abolish government schools entirely and replace them with privately owned enterprises? Where is the evidence that Irving is a right-winger? Nor does Kurth fare well with practical affairs of state. It is simply presented as gospel truth that if you take a lot of local money, pool it and distribute it equally, the result will be better schools for the districts that are below average in tax collection. But if these poorer school districts are no longer funded by their community, they are insulated from any pressure to provide a good education to their students. Kurth could find out about these and other arguments if he weren't so closed minded, so convinced of his rectitude. (If Act 60 is such good policy, why can't Kurth show us states where like policies work?) Finally, Kurth has problems with the truth. I am not accusing him of being a liar, but he suffers from a common occupational disease of columnists: He finds one belief or quote that matches his prejudices, and presents it as general knowledge. We are told that "Irving has lived in southern Vermont for more than 25 years, but no matter: In Vermont terms, he's still a flatlander." A nifty stereotype, and I'm sure you can find some old codger to provide an example, but is this really typical for the whole state? The next time someone asks me why so many people don't like liberals, I will point them at Kurth's article. Liberals are not disliked because they are pro-gay, or because they did a lot of drugs in the '60s, or because they are wonderful and caring but a little impractical. I despise liberals because they know hardly anything, and their policies have been tried and found wanting; yet they presume to tell me that they are all-knowing and morally superior. -- Floyd McWilliams It is a shame to see the legislators in Vermont, undoubtedly the nation's most progressive state, undo the basis of the state's success. Folks take participatory government seriously up there, as anyone who has attended a town meeting can attest to. Though "giving government back to the people" is a slogan that has been co-opted in recent years by Newt and his cronies, it is a way of life in the Green Mountain State. By taking away the right of its citizens to decide how to spend money on educational (and other) resources locally, the state government is undermining its own successful progressivism. John Irving is only doing what all good Vermonters are doing: participating in the debate that shapes their government. He could choose his words better (c'mon, John, what would Dickens say about your swipe at trailer park denizens?), but he shouldn't be vilified. It will be interesting to see what happens with Act 60. I hope Salon will continue to follow the story. -- Larry Weissman New York (Weekend Vermonter) I must confess my own amusement at Peter Kurth's recent tirade against novelist John Irving. On the one hand, he takes pride in his home state's live-and-let-live attitude, while on the other he casually dismisses the object of his angst as still a flatlander and prepares to assist in Irving's threatened exodus. So which is it? A kinder, gentler place able to absorb and tolerate dissenting opinion, or a swarming, angry mob? That pundits like Kurth would so vehemently attack anyone daring to stand up for himself and his children gives us a close look at the true nature of the beast. It is impossible that the flap over Act 60 could simultaneously be a storm in a teacup, as Kurth alleges, and a turbulent political argument, as the wrath he directs at Irving implies. Supporters of Act 60 may not like being accused of highway robbery, but this cannot change reality. Meanwhile, I'm sure I can offend Kurth's pinkish mores to a greater degree by asserting that even poor people, like myself, oppose silly measures like Act 60. People may continue to vote for bread and circuses, but all the angry liberals in the world can't prop these things up without taxing honest workers like myself and Irving. But then again, I'm just a poor, capitalist windbag. -- Thomas Koehnle Athens, Ohio When I was in college, John Irving was briefly a favorite writer of mine. Since reading "The World According to Garp," I have found his novels unreadable, and finally gave up after four or five failed attempts. In the fall of 1992, I noticed that he and Michael Ondaatje were going to have a public "conversation" about books and writing, sponsored by the Canadian consulate in New York. I went, having just begun reading "The English Patient," and was treated to two-plus hours of John Irving's gaseous personal ruminations. As this scenario (long, irrelevant, self-serving questions hidden in bloviations, followed by pithy, charming responses) unfolded, I wanted to leave, but was stuck in the middle of a row of 40 people, and wanted neither to draw attention to myself by leaving or to disturb those sitting between the exit and my seat. But my misfortune was ultimately rewarded: About an hour or so into the "discussion," John Irving went on at length for some unknown and unclear reason about whether and to what extent he considered using JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe as a backdrop to one of his novels set in the 1960s. I was uncomfortable, as the discussion and this example were completely unnecessary, and who knew who might be in the room? About 45 minutes later, there was some commotion behind me. I noticed that John Kennedy Jr. was leaving, and the noise was from the 15 or 20 people he had to step past in order to get out. The look on John Irving's face was priceless: A writer apparently without shame was demonstrating some. The evening ended not long afterward. -- Anne Wolfson New York John Irving's opposition to Act 60 in Vermont is highly ironic considering that I attended prep school with one of his sons in western Massachusetts about 15 years ago. As a product of one of those "stricken Northeast Kingdom hamlets where poverty is a way of life," I think it makes sense to redistribute monies to schools based on the number of students vs. the wealth of the town. Doesn't a child from my hometown of self-defined rednecks deserve the same education as the child of a wealthy flatlander? If Mr. Irving has a problem with it, there are plenty of private schools in New England for Irving's young son to attend, many in New Hampshire, where he is more than welcome to set up residence. By the way, from what I've seen of the 1990s California public school system as a volunteer tutor, the 1970s Vermont school system, even in my poverty-stricken hamlet, was better. Mr. Irving would be more concerned if he lived here. -- Adrienne Eng San Jose, Calif.
_______________ THE ARTIST OF DEATH BY GARY KAMIYA (06/30/98)
	Perhaps -- just for argument's sake -- Hitler wasn't even an actual anti-Semite. Jews made a fine scapegoat, and there was no reason to abandon their persecution just as absolute power was being consolidated. Even today, we have political criminals who attempt to distract the public with wild tales of the doings of the Designated Fall Guy while they use this manufactured crisis to justify all manner of totalitarian excess and wanton murder. With Pol Pot, it was "bourgeois intellectuals" and "counterrevolutionaries"; with Roberto D'Aubuisson, "communists." To a much lesser extent, the fundamentalist right in this country has used the specter of homos run amok to consolidate their political power -- albeit without the blood bath (yet) -- and J. Edgar Hoover parlayed several red scares into one of the most powerful national police forces in the world. By the way, the killing of inconvenient journalists is by no means a thing of the past -- look into the events surrounding the Inslaw scandal, or the La Penca bombing. For that matter, ask reporters in Arizona what happens when they ask too many questions about Mafia inroads into their state government. -- Mike Treece
_______________ POT OF GOLD OR P.C. MONEY PIT? BY HEATHER CHAPLIN (07/03/98)
	Heather Chaplin's article on "socially responsible" mutual funds misses one possible key reason for the success of such funds: Tobacco and weapons manufacturing contain costs that are not wholly accounted for on those companies' balance sheets. Instead, society pays these external costs in terms of health services, polluted lands, etc. By not producing or by reducing the manufacture of harmful byproducts, socially responsible companies are better prepared to weather the changes in legislation and social trends that stymie corporate polluters. In the economist's jargon, the costly "externality is internalized" by the socially responsible companies' superior use of technology or management practices. Bad companies may make short-term gains on a quarterly basis but unless they socially "upgrade" their businesses, they will probably lose their competitive advantage in the future. -- Jonathan Bailly (Analyst) New York SALON | July 10, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| ROCKS IN THE HEAD BY CHARLES TAYLOR

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.