- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2
_______________ AND THE FRUMPS ARE ... BY CAMILLE PAGLIA (03/22/99)
	I completely agree with Camille Paglia's take on the childish reception that the great Elia Kazan received upon accepting his richly deserved Oscar. "Art cannot flourish in a political prison," Camille herself once said. Regardless of Kazan's questionable decision to name names, he made some of the greatest films of the '50s and '60s. He introduced Marlon Brando and James Dean to moviegoers and permanently changed the face of masculinity. The Aacademy gives awards for excellence in the art of motion pictures, not in moral uprightness. Imposing moral standards on artists is a mistake. Artists, who may not be good people, die, but great art lives forever. -- Lillie Wade Camille Paglia protests those who did not applaud Elia Kazan because she despises politically correct moralistic crusades against artists. This is a mind-boggling statement: What was the blacklist, what was Kazan's betrayal of his friends, what was the House Un-American Activities Committee but a moralistic crusade against artists? Can anyone seriously argue that screenwriters, directors and actors were a threat to our nation's security? It was a punishment inflicted against artists for their political beliefs without any regard to the quality or content of their professional work, and Kazan took real actions that resulted in the actual repression of his friends and colleagues. If Paglia had the least regard for the clear meaning of her own words then she would respect the choice that some made to refrain from applauding Kazan, about as mild a form of protest as is possible. Let me get this straight: It is fine when powerful corporations, the FBI and the U.S. Congress destroy hundreds of artists' lives for their opinions. But it is an unbearable imposition of political orthodoxy when a minority politely withholds its approval of Kazan. -- Steven Konover Camille Paglia "despises moralistic PC crusades against artists," but apparently not when the moralistic crusader in question testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. It is perhaps only appropriate that Paglia, who is so fixated on that tired and overused term "PC," should bring it up in this context. Since everyone's political views are informed by his or her own set of values and are thus "correct" according to those values, the fact is that, technically speaking, everyone who has a political opinion is guilty of being "politically correct." However, the term "PC" is used selectively by Paglia and others only against those whose political correctness differs from their own. The use of this term is a shorthand way of dismissing opposing views, by attacking the very credibility of the manner by which others arrived at their opinions. It is a '90s smear term, the contemporary version of the redbaiting words like "pinko" that were so frequently bandied about in the 1950s to discredit those with contrary viewpoints. If Paglia's PC-baiting attacks against Kazan's detractors tell us anything, it is that some things may appear to die, only to return years later in a new guise -- including, unfortunately, some of the very smear tactics of McCarthyistic political discourse that characterized Kazan's era. -- Michael K. Valenza
_______________ IN DEFENSE OF JAMES CRAMER BY KEN KURSON (03/12/99)
	In his effort to defend James Cramer, Ken Kurson touches on a much bigger story: Increasingly, corporations are making the claim that there is no right to criticize them; that any public criticism that causes a negative impact on their company's sales, stock price or public image is legally actionable, even when the criticism is completely legitimate. Big shots with a reputation and wealth can stand up under this pressure, but little folks are being silenced. Yes, Oprah Winfrey beat back the Texas folk who said you can't say bad things about beef, and afterwards she said, "Free speech rocks!" She should have said "Free speech costs!" The Internet is full of folks who can now publish criticism, but not without the risk of receiving threatening letters from lawyers and having their completely legal Web sites taken down as a result, as most folks can't risk bankruptcy for principle. -- Joe Buck Ken Kurson has written a wonderful article about financial journalism and James Cramer. I am a great fan of Cramer's and a subscriber to thestreet.com -- for good reason. Two years ago I began to learn about investing. I am a single, professional women who now has the ability to invest. I read books, magazines and Web sites, but most of it I didn't enjoy, and I always wondered how much I was really learning. Then I discovered thestreet.com and Cramer. He and all the others taught me a tremendous amount and they made it fun! With the information I learned on their site I developed my own strategy and stuck to it. I never looked to them for what to buy or sell, but rather how to decide on my own. With their special insights into the market that I, the little guy, don't normally have access to, I could make my own decisions. Above all else, they have made investing interesting and fun -- which is something I never would have thought possible before I started reading thestreet.com. All the Cramer-haters can continue their venomous remarks, but they will fall on only deaf ears here. For the most part, those who criticize now were the same ones I was bored with before. Thanks again for Kurson's article. -- Kathlyn Hoekstra SALON | March 26, 1999

R E C E N T L Y+| SPURIOUS GEORGE: A GEEK TRAGEDY BY JAKE TAPPER

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.