It's about character, stupid
BY FRED BRANFMAN
(08/31/99)

Fred Branfman isn't entirely accurate in characterizing the furor over Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky as highlighting something new about the frailties of our presidents. The American public is often more aware of our past presidents' shortcomings than their accomplishments. Ask anyone about Jefferson and the name Sally Hemings will more often than not precede any mention of the Declaration of Independence or the Louisiana Purchase. Certainly Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding are remembered for nothing but their scandalous presidencies.

We have a long history of putting up with rascals in the Oval Office or its previous iterations. It is very rare that we have had a commander in chief with the dignity of a Washington or a Lincoln. For the most part we will elect individuals as flawed and conflicted as ourselves. And we must accept that the hurly-burly of modern politics may compromise the choices laid out before us.

If we want to "restore dignity" to the office it is ultimately our own responsibility. We must demand and seek "character" in our highest office, not allow a candidate's acolytes to decide for us what we are privileged to know or not know. Only once we do know, we may decide whether to elect what we deserve.

-- Erich S. Huang

Fred Branfman is wrong about Clinton's supposed "demystification of the presidency." Election mentality is different from incumbent mentality. If Clinton had another election to endure, he would lose over Monicagate. The public would vote him out simply to avoid the further interruption in the public's business. But when citizens invest their most prized political tool (their votes) in a candidate, those who would remove that official must leap over a higher bar. The Republicans tripped over it in 1998.

Branfman does note that "in the old days," the public was hypocritical and used divorce as a disqualifying factor in Rockefeller's case. But there is no evidence that the public has become much less hypocritical since 1960. Perhaps divorce is no longer a factor; but, in the hands of party spin-operatives and breathless media, evidence of hard drugs usage is still a non-starter for any presidential wannabe. Certainly for Republicans ... look at their own polls about W and drugs.

Our government won't improve until competent, average citizens decide to run for office, and that won't happen if they think the garbage cans of their private lives are going to be ransacked. Candidates, when asked questions of a personal nature, should all say, "Next!" Eventually, the media will get the idea: It's the issues, stupid!

-- Ron Duplantis

Fred Branfman writes, "What if he were addicted? Sold the drug? ... Why did he stop? Did he think about the potential harm it could do to his father's political career if he got caught?" These questions don't go to the heart of Bush's character, they go to the heart of Branfman's imagination. I would hope that candidates would be judged by their character in the era in which they're running. Bush has stated he hasn't used drugs in more than 20 years, which is still disclosing more than the public needs to know. He doesn't use drugs now nor does he endorse their use. The man that may be president is the George W. Bush of 1999. If he has the political qualifications and speaks to people's needs now, the decisions he made concerning his personal life 20-odd years ago shouldn't matter.

-- Stacey Pasco

Don't ask, he'll tell
BY AMY SILVERMAN
(08/31/99)

Amid surreal opposition, Steve May is doing a good job in the Arizona Legislature. Though it bothers me, as a gay man and a lifelong Democrat, to approve of a Mormon Republican, I have stopped laughing. Go Steve! Keep telling -- and get rid of that stupid policy for good!

-- Frank Hartigan
Tempe, Ariz.

Isn't it misleading to describe May as an openly gay Mormon? The Mormon church explicitly disapproves of homosexual activity and ordinarily excommunicates members of the church who willfully practice, much less publicly advocate, a homosexual lifestyle or political agenda. I think that point should be made. Otherwise your article appears to normalize the homosexual lifestyle -- "Gee, even Mormons can be openly gay." This is very misleading. I suspect May would concede that his alleged Mormon identity and his avowed gay identity are quite contradictory.

-- Dave Frame

"Log Cabin Republicans"? When you consider that the most forward-thinking Republican is a good 20 years behind the curve, wouldn't gay Republicans be better off supporting their friends, rather than making excuses for their enemies?

-- Michael F. McCarthy Jr.
West Palm Beach, Fla.

The gang's all here
BY KEVIN BISCH
(08/31/99)

Apparently we have reached a point in our society where people are so desperate to become famous that they will do anything, no matter how degrading. I'm not too old to remember when a person became famous for contributions to society, hard work or a long-distinguished career. This new breed of celebrity constantly confuses "fame" with "notoriety."

I cannot for the life of me understand what would motivate someone to act out what is supposed to be an intimate expression of love in front of a camera with 500 men present. Instead of placing ice on her genitals, as your story stated, she should have iced her head. I read the passage about her tucking her daughter into bed, and realized we'll never see anything about Houston under "Mothers Who Think."

-- Kirby F. Warnock
Dallas

Caught in the crossfire
BY JESSIE DEETER AND ANNE SENGHS
(09/01/99)

How dull and predictable. Gosh -- tanks and soldiers in Beirut. Really? Imagine that (with a war going on in the south and the threat of Israeli attacks on civilian targets whenever they damn well please).

Your writers showed all the insight one should expect from people fresh off the boat. The empty McDonald's and the mother angrily chastising her baby daughter were colorful touches designed to make Lebanon seem even more eerie to your average readers. The lack of people in the McD's could be an indication of the late hour of the attack, or perhaps an indication that the Lebanese have good taste in food. And is it even remotely possible the mother might have been every bit as frightened and stressed as her child?

Who were these blasi people they met? Although I was in England at the time of the attack, I can tell you that the majority of my friends here were just as terrified as the two authors were, and for good reason -- this was not "just another day" in Lebanon. Yes, Israeli warplanes buzz the city with monotonous regularity and bomb the south and the Bekaa several times a month, but Beirut hasn't been bombed since the last time Israel attacked in 1996.

I suppose with pidgin Arabic and 20 years of prejudice to overcome, one might easily jump to the conclusion that Beirutis are insensitive to major artillery fire. Your authors certainly did. However I am sure that once they have been here for a reasonable amount of time they will realize that what they thought was insensitivity is actually resignation -- Lebanon is a convenient target 24/7 as far as Israel is concerned and no one anywhere even bothers to denounce this fact, preferring to concentrate on the occasional civilian fatality in the kibbutz of N. Israel.

This article, dressed as it is in "travel feature" guise, only adds to the misconceptions and irrational prejudice that already shroud this city -- especially in American eyes. Yes, 300 Marines died here; so did 35,000 Lebanese civilians. Get over yourselves.

-- Warren Singh-Bartlett

The ugly American embassy
BY STEVE KETTMANN AND GUY RAZ
(09/01/99)

What a contrast the pushy, flashy, self-righteous, short-sighted, megalomaniacal U.S. embassy is to everything the careful, imaginative, comprehensive, forward-looking yet historical "new" Berlin is aiming to represent.

-- Terra Lynch

The carousels of Paris
BY SUSAN HACK
(08/31/99)

When I was a student in Paris during the early 1960s, carousels were a bright spot in the otherwise dark gray "City of Light," whose buildings culture minister Malraux had just begun to pressure wash. The mood of Paris was as somber, with the Algerian War's terrorist acts shattering the city's peace and quiet.

Thirty years later, in 1990, I returned to Paris with my wife and three daughters. One of my most enjoyable moments was watching them ride the "manege," near the stairs that lead up to Montmartre's Sacre Coeur. (Watching my 3-year-old Caitlin chase the pigeons in the Luxembourg Gardens was a close second.)

Last year I visited my mother in upstate New York, and took her shopping at the Carousel Center mall near Syracuse. I thought this was an interesting name for a mall and asked her about it. She pointed to the carousel on display and said, "Do you see that? It used to be at Roseland, near Canandaigua. You used to ride on those horses when you were a kid." I had come full circle.

-- Chuck Ralston

The respectable cult
BY LAURA MILLER
(09/01/99)

and

Like Jonestown in slow motion
BY LAURA MILLER
(09/01/99)

Laura Miller and Caroline Fraser fail to point out that many families turned to Christian Science when medical treatment failed them. They also have ignored Mary Baker Eddy's statement urging patients to seek other treatment when Christian Science treatment has not resulted in healing.

Personally, I am extremely grateful that Christian Science treatment is available. In 1985, I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based, in part, on an MRI. I was told by three different neurologists that there was little that could be done for my condition. After a year of depression in response to this verdict, I sought Christian Science treatment. I was covered under my employer's long-term disability plan; however, in 1993 benefits were discontinued (much to my joy!) after an MRI and my neurologist could no longer find any evidence of the disease.

Also, Fraser's alarm that taxpayer dollars are being misused through Medicare's coverage of Christian Science nursing services is almost laughable when the cost of Christian Science treatment is compared to conventional medical treatment. My last treatment from a Christian Science practitioner cost $10. A medical doctor costs a bit more! Since Christian Science prohibits alcohol and tobacco use, perhaps the taxpayer and private health care insurance dollars spent on completely preventable diseases caused by alcohol abuse and smoking should be considered when evaluating wise use of funds.

-- Jane Starrett

Caroline Fraser mentions Diane Sawyer's "apologia" for Christian Scientists, in which Sawyer stated, "In serious situations, many [faith healers], most notably Christian Scientists, will seek outside help." If Caroline Fraser was paying attention, she'd know this to be the truth. I have never known a Christian Science parent who would put their child at risk if medical treatment was necessary. My mother, for example, took me to the doctor for stitches when I cut my arm on some broken glass -- not to have done so would have left me with a scar or worse. Christian Scientists are not unreasonable or foolhardy people who unnecessarily risk the lives of their children. To suggest so is irresponsible.

One of the reasons I left the church was because I watched my grandmother die of what was probably a treatable illness. It was her choice not to seek medical treatment, but as a teenager it was difficult for me to understand. Now that I'm in my 30s, I wonder if perhaps my inability to trust in a God, to have that kind of faith, indicates something lacking in me.

-- Melissa N. (last name withheld at writer's request)
Seattle

I agree with all of the criticisms Fraser makes against Christian Science and the special privileges it has accrued over the years except one: the use of Medicare/Medicaid payments for people in Christian Science nursing homes. My grandmother entered a Christian Science nursing home when she was 86 years old, not having seen a doctor since her family converted to CS when she was 11. The care provided to her by the nurses and staff in her CS nursing home near Olympia, Wash., was indeed technically complex and "skilled" in many of the ways demanded by Medicare/Medicaid regulations.

My grandmother's condition required complex drainage, cleaning and bandaging that she was not capable of doing herself. A CS nurse provided these services. By the time she entered the nursing home she was no longer able to cook or clean for herself. Christian Science staff undertook these tasks for her. These are essential functions provided by nursing homes all over the United States. The only difference is that residents of CS nursing homes choose not to receive medical treatment. Does this choice mean they should be evicted from their nursing homes? Of course not. As a society we have decided that nursing homes are the places our elderly go to die. If, along the way, they choose to die without medical intervention, there is no necessary conflict between church and state to prevent Christian Scientists from receiving the same support as everyone else.

-- Travis Robert Sanford

Is welfare reform sending more kids to foster care?
BY NELL BERNSTEIN
(09/01/99)

Nell Bernstein's article is misleading in several respects. There is no reliable evidence that welfare reform has caused or will cause a dramatic increase in child abuse and neglect cases, contrary to the dire predictions of many observers after passage of the 1996 federal law. It is true that the foster care population has gone up since enactment of welfare reform. However, it had been going up long before welfare reform for reasons that have more to do with parental substance abuse, the rise in single-parent families and better reporting of child maltreatment than with loss or reduction of cash assistance.

Bernstein also incorrectly states that child welfare agencies remove children for reasons of poverty alone, a practice forbidden by law in many states and certainly contrary to sound child welfare practice. She neglects to mention that many states have safety-net programs funded with state dollars designed to prevent extreme deprivation after loss of benefits.

More data is needed to assess the impact of welfare reform on poor families. In the meantime, alarmist conjecture and speculation are not helpful.

-- Steve Christian
Denver

What I don't understand about Bernstein's column is the lack of any mention of common sense and personal responsibility when it comes to having children. Welfare reform isn't "hurting" kids. It's irresponsible people -- who have children and are not able to care for them, through the lack of either financial or personal resources -- who are hurting children.

Why is having children considered a "human right"? If a person doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, is it very smart for that person to spawn children? Humans should consider the possibility that we are more than just dumb "breeder" animals.

-- Russ Harris