- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2
_______________THAT ONE RIDICULOUS PALM BY ANNE LAM0TT (01/15/99)
	A brief response to the boorish Ben Walsh letter on Anne Lamott is in order. I am a father of two little kids. Because I need to be able to look myself in the eye when I use the mirror, I try to be as involved in the raising of these kids as I can (and still hold down my full-time job). The good with the bad, the kisses with the diapers, the delightfully serendipitous moments of unadulterated joy along with the miserably nocturnal grinding-in-the-corners (all right, it's a hockey metaphor). Consequently, I read and usually enjoy the "Mothers Who Think" part of your excellent journal. On at least three occasions, Lamott's work has connected directly with my psyche, big time. Each of these times she has addressed parenting issues that were hot topics with me and my wife. Anne Lamott has an admirable sensitivity to how it feels to parent and to be a parent, and she has the writerly skills to express her observations. I absolutely enjoy her work, and I implore Salon to keep her at it as long as they can. Ben, if you don't like her work, why do you read it? -- Damon Rondeau Winnipeg, Manitoba
_______________IT KEEPS RIGHT ON A-HURTIN' BY CHARLES TAYLOR (01/18/99)
	Charles Taylor's review of Peter Guralnick's biography, "Careless Love," is a fine example of why I enjoy Salon so much. The review was so well-written and engaging it brought tears to my eyes, and I don't even like Elvis that much. Keep up the terrific work! -- Laura Healy The hillbilly icon Elvis deserves to have his biography hyped, but why is Dr. Martin Luther King less important? Is Salon so big and so cool that they don't bother with routine federal holidays anymore? I'm curious, how many blacks and other shades write for Salon? Maybe it's the Oprah rule for competence: She can't find blacks qualified enough to work on her self-promotion team. I am not happy. In fact I am one pissed white boy. -- Ron Anguiano
_______________ON TO MARS? BY REBECCA BRYANT (01/07/99)
	I've been involved with the Mars Society from its inception, and I felt that Rebecca Bryant's piece captured its spirit better than anything else I've ever read. It seems to me that Michael Booth is well disposed toward the Society in general, but there are several apparent misapprehensions in his letter that I would like to correct. First, Booth seems to be arguing that human and robotic missions are mutually exclusive. The Mars Society has never opposed the robotic exploration of Mars; in fact it was involved in the strenuous lobbying last year which restored $20 million of the proposed cuts to the Ariadne rover mission planned for the 2001 launch opportunity. We recognize that robotic missions will play a vital role in gathering knowledge of the planet, which will greatly increase the success of future human missions. But even the smartest robots have their limitations. If we are ever going to get properly into the fossil record on Mars and find out whether life once existed there, if we are ever going to compile any meaningful inventory of the planet's mineral resources, and if we are ever going to build up a complete picture of conditions on Mars and how they came to be so radically different from Earth's, then eventually people will have to go there. Having people go there wouldn't just be fun, and great TV (And why not? Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Everest in '53 because it was there). It would be good science as well. Heaven help us if the day comes when we can only justify scientific discovery in the name of entertainment. Booth seems to be suggesting that if a Mars mission can't maintain great TV ratings, it isn't worth doing. Surely we don't have to be quite that cynical? Just because the Moon landings were a "flags and footprints" exercise without an adequately thought-out follow-up plan, it doesn't mean that a human Mars mission needs to be the same. In fact, that is exactly the situation that the Mars Society would wish to avoid. By considering the possibility of a human presence on Mars in the context of future exploration, exploitation and colonization of the planet, the Society hopes to create a climate of opinion which ensures that a human landing on Mars would not be a one-off TV spectacular, but an event of profound significance and the beginning of a new era for humanity. There are people in the Society who are putting a lot of effort into thinking through the implications of Martian settlement and they are not costing the American (or any other) taxpayer any money at all; they're doing it in their own time and at their own expense, and because they believe it's a worthwhile exercise. I'm one of them, and having the time of my life. -- Ruth Waterton Manchester, England SALON | Jan. 22, 1999

R E C E N T L Y+| RIGHT ON! BETTY FRIEDAN'S SECRET COMMUNIST PAST BY DAVID HOROWITZ

Do you want to respond to a letter to the editor? Join the ongoing discussion in the Welcome area of Table Talk If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at letters@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.