- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2
_______________A CLEAN SLATE AT THE MICROSOFT TRIAL BY SUSAN LEHMAN (11/12/98)
	Let's try again. Susan Lehman's thesis is that there is something fishy about Michael Lewis no longer covering the Microsoft trial for Slate. She quotes me as saying there's nothing fishy: Michael wanted to stop filing -- we did not want or ask him to stop. But I am, after all, the one being accused of misbehavior, so my denial is unconvincing. Turns out, though (as your reply to my letter concedes), that Lehman had e-mail from the alleged victim, Michael Lewis, also denying the whole thing, which she didn't even mention. Using Lewis' denial would have made nonsense of the whole piece. Leaving it out was dishonest. Hasn't Lehman ever heard of the ancient journalistic principle "Too good to check?" When your heart's set on running a story that would be ruined if Michael Lewis denies it, don't ask him! -- Michael Kinsley Editor, Slate Susan Lehman responds: Huh? I didn't accuse Michael Kinsley of "misbehavior." I raised -- in the gentlest way -- a tremendously obvious question about the connection between Microsoft and Slate's highly entertaining, highly critical trial chronicler. I have great respect for Kinsley -- I'm confidant he has better, more important things to do than hound me about this relatively minor matter.
_______________THE WHALING THAT WASN'T BY DAVID NEIWERT (11/06/98)
	David Niewert's look at the Makah tribe's whale hunt was a reasoned, informed piece -- though I must take issue with one statement he makes. He is wrong in reporting that the Makah "only started seriously touting its heritage as a reason for the hunt after it hired a public relations firm in 1997." We are that P.R. agency (McCarthy Communications) and the tribe had pressed its heritage long before we were retained -- to the federal government, the International Whaling Commission and others. Because the media hadn't noticed is the very reason we were hired. Niewert's error is troubling in another way, too, since it suggests that the tribe somehow seeks to manipulate public perception. Contrast that with the strategy used by the Sea Shepherds, whose funding, membership and campaign agenda is dependent almost entirely on media exposure. Is it coincidence that the Sea Shepherds have targeted the Makah when gray whaling by native people is happening on a much broader scale along Russia's Pacific Coast? Or could it be the Makah's proximity to the American press? Maybe when CNN opens a bureau in Kamchatka the Sea Shepherds will head that direction. Here is perhaps a better question: Is it fair or reasonable to hold up the Makah to public attack in a country that kills tens of millions of animals from dozens of species each year for food? Let's see the Sea Shepherds take on, for example, the New England swordfishing fleet. The Makah are acting within federal and international law based on a moral right they have had for centuries. The 20-year-old Sea Shepherds have appointed themselves moral arbiters, openly flout the law for attention and pass out their news clips to potential donors with a zeal that would make a Hollywood publicity flack blush. If there's going to be a discussion of public relations and the Makah whale hunt, let's start with a few facts like those. -- Jim McCarthy Washington In his article, "The whaling that wasn't," David Niewert states: "The Makah claims to a cultural connection to whaling cannot be dismissed. A fierce, warlike tribe given to enslaving members of neighboring bands in the centuries before they were nearly wiped out ..." Accordingly, the Makah should also be allowed to scout around and pick up some slaves. If not, why not? The Makah want to revive a practice in which none of their living ever took part. If they are allowed to hunt whale despite the worldwide ban, then there is absolutely no justification for disallowing them the power to enslave others. The 13th and 14th Amendments cannot be cited if the Makah are already deemed to be outside the law, the allowance of which the whaling would demand. If they are in fact restricted by U.S. law, then they are likewise subject to the treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory nation, including the ban on whaling. -- M.W. Grossmann New York
_______________CHARACTER BY CHARLES TAYLOR (11/16/98)
	While reading Charles Taylor's Home Movies article about Philip Baker Hall this week, I was disturbed to see that Taylor made absolutely no mention of the role that he is most famous for: that of Lt. Bookman, the library policeman on one of the most famous episodes of "Seinfeld" ever. The episode, famous for George being called "Cantstandja" by his gym teacher before being given an atomic wedgie, was absolutely stolen by Hall, whose turn is so dryly hilarious that one has to wonder how he could keep a straight face while delivering such hilarious hard-boiled dialogue about the importance of prompt library book returns. -- Kevin Curtis North Kingstown, R.I.
_______________LETTER TO THE EDITOR: WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO PINOCHET BY A.R. BRENHOLTS (11/18/98)
	Never have I been so moved by a letter to the editor! What an incredible expression of the essence of the matter -- and astute application of what, in my opinion, is the bedrock of all human moral law: the simple old Golden Rule. Thank you for giving extra space to such an extraordinarily well-expressed capsule of what Pinochetism meant to the so-called civilized values we purport to hold dear. Nobody could have put it more clearly or powerfully than A.R. Brenholts. May the political abstractionists and their bewigged judicial counterparts who run our world someday get a clue on the human realities they presume to adjudicate. And may hundreds of Brenholtses arise to help them do it. -- Susan Sharp I'm not sure what kind of effect A.R. Brenholts was going for in his extended rant about what would happen to Pinochet if he were arrested in the manner that he's done to so many others. I imagine that he's trying to aim for some sort of poetic justice. Instead, he turned my stomach, salivating over the brutality that Pinochet inflicted on others. If he wants to convince me that Pinochet is evil, then he's going to have to provide a contrast. If we did to him what he's done to others -- and I hate repeating this cliché -- we'd be as loathsome as he is. -- Darren MacLennan I thoroughly enjoyed A.R. Brenholts' letter suggesting how Pinochet ought to be treated. In fact I was sorry when it ended. Might I suggest that since Margaret Thatcher (I refuse to call her "Lady" Thatcher since I refuse to believe she is one) is so enamored of that horrid old man that she be included, or at the very least brought along and forced to watch? I hope her recent vocal support for such a despicable piece of human garbage will lay to rest the illusion, widely prevalent in the U.S., that she was ever any kind of a defender of freedom. -- George Brims SALON | Nov. 23, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| PUNDITS TO SADDAM: YOUR EVIL DERRIÈRE IS OURS! BY JAMES PONIEWOZIK

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.