Media money fixation
BY JANELLE BROWN
(10/04/99)

Janelle Brown wrote, "The old media adage of 'Sex sells' has been shoved aside by an even uglier '90s truth: Money sells." About 7,000 years ago, a wise king/poet in India wrote a collection of rhyming poems (in Sanskrit) to form a compendium called "Nitishataka" ("Hundreds of Morals") and an even larger didactic work "Hitopadesha" ("Moral Advice") in which he observed the following (translated into English):

He who has Money, is Cultured,
He's a Pundit, he's a good Listener and endowed with Quality;
He's an Orator, and he's very Handsome,
All qualities take refuge in Gold ...

Being once a student of Sanskrit (eons ago) and learning the wisdom from great Sanskrit works (not to mention my rather privileged Brahmin upbringing), I feel it was ironic that my staunchest goal in life when I graduated from college in the early '70s was to work, live and prosper in America. Having lived in the United States and Canada for the past 22 years as a computer systems software professional, I feel remorse at the depreciating "value system" of America (sadly emulated by all developing countries, including India) and the debilitating influence it has had on the younger generations. Now, if only the media stopped it's ugly glorification of the riches!

-- Nash Aragam
Maitland, Fla.

I do agree that the news is flooded with stories about start-ups, IPOs and the new millionaires or billionaires. But I would also like to point out an article in a recent issue of Wired Magazine (Sept. 1999) titled "Nonprofit Motive." A lot of this new breed of instant millionaires are now turning their attention to philanthropy -- with a twist. Not only are they donating money and stock, they are donating their time and management experience into something the article calls "venture philanthropy." They are setting up organizations and foundations that they believe will more effectively and efficiently channel the contributions to the people who need it. A case in point is mentioned: When eBay went public in 1998, they set aside 107,250 shares of stock to create the eBay Foundation.

-- Ben Wyckoff

Another day, another IPO, another Salon lament about another media lament on how today's Silicon Valley is all about greed, greed, greed.

Please keep in mind that you don't have a certain number of pages to fill each day.

-- Steve Read

Silicon Follies: Laurel moves out, Paul moves in and a CEO goes UFO
BY THOMAS SCOVILLE
(09/29/99)

Just wanted to thank you people for Silicon Follies. As a former liberal arts type who finds himself working as a software instructor, I found this work totally delightful, witty and full of lines and quips I'll carry with me for a long time. I will miss looking forward to the next episode.

-- R. McGunigle
Clarion. Pa.

Piper Laurie remembers the smoldering genius of George C. Scott
BY MICHAEL SRAGOW
(09/30/99)

Michael Sragow's retrospective on the late George C. Scott evoked memories in me -- not personal, of course, but those of a movie-goer.

I remember Gen. Buck Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove," explaining with quivering enthusiasm to a shocked war room how his bombers can slip in under the Russian radar. His whole body has become a bomber, arms spread and at an angle. His eyes shine with a dark pride, his mouth shows a smile, teeth like the teeth of a skull. He's a perfect complement to Peter Sellers' timid president.

I also remember a lesser-known film, "The Flim-Flam Man": Scott is the old con artist, explaining to his young "student" the fine points of the flim-flam. Those eyes again, twinkling with the enjoyment of the con.

And finally, "Anatomy of a Murder," the courtroom drama. The powerful image I have is of James Stewart arguing in court. There is turmoil and arguing going on around Dancer, the prosecutor, which was Scott's character, but he sits controlled, hands together as if in prayer, thumbs pressed against his lips and nose. Again his eyes are alive, but controlled. Suddenly Stewart slaps his hand down, angrily, on the table right in front of Scott. Scott barely flinches. Every time I see that, I think, "What characterization. What concentration."

I will miss George C. Scott because I enjoy good acting.

-- Bob Siegmann

Who's the real underdog?
BY ANTHONY YORK
(10/02/99)

Anthony York misses a major point. If a major candidate must be "media ready" -- the filter through which York seems to judge Bradley -- then we will never rid ourselves of multimillion-dollar politicians. The media are a major part of the problem, because they create the problem.

I support Bradley simply because I believe he would at least try to fix this broken political system. This is a judgment on my part about his character, not an agreement in every detail to his program.

If Bradley does not succeed, it does not matter to me whether Bush (the likely winner in this case) or Gore becomes president. Both are the ghostly conceits of television, and not anyone I will ever know. I don't expect them to do anything that would really help me or the people I know.

-- Walter L. Battaglia
Davis, Calif.

York tries to paint Bradley as out of touch with reality -- as though every other significant presidential candidate weren't also an elite politician and therefore just as out of touch. Bradley, the candidate with the most serious, clearly defined proposals for change, is the last one who should be called a "cipher." The result of his candidacy will tell us a lot about what kind of leaders America really wants -- this is a race of substance vs. style, ideas vs. polls. Every article like York's that treats image as more important than the issues contributes to the ongoing dominance of slick, fake politicians. I suppose it was only to be expected that the media would turn on Bradley the moment he stopped being the underdog, but it's too bad to see Salon leading the way. Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single article in Salon that actually analyzes Bradley's policy proposals -- or anyone else's, for that matter. A magazine that fails to make a positive contribution has no right to critique the status quo.

-- Tom Davies
Takoma Park, Md.

Said who?
BY CHRIS COLIN
(10/04/99)

Chris Colon manages to both damn Edward Said with faint praise and coin a new oxymoron. Colin writes of Said's just-published memoirs that "'Out of Place' offers sufficient evidence to exonerate Said of any blatant obfuscation." However, obfuscation is by definition subtle rather than blatant. To have engaged in "blatant obfuscation" on the subject of his uncle's house in Jerusalem, Said would have had to tell lies about the house which were at once both clear and confusing -- an obvious impossibility. So to defend Said against a charge of "blatant obfuscation" concerning that house is meaningless.

-- Jonathan S. Mark
Alexandria, Va.

Nothing Personal: The dung show
BY AMY REITER
(10/04/99)

I know people like yourself make careers of sensationalism and negativism, but I think your view on the Mormon-owned KSL TV station was out of line. It is comforting to know that someone, or in this case some group, has the backbone to stand up for a moral philosophy while the rest of us just accept the declining standards of language, ethics and morality as "just reality." Because you don't have the fortitude to hold to a higher standard of behavior that elevates the human condition doesn't mean you should berate those that do. Your doing so demonstrates that you're part of the societal problem instead of the cure.

-- Jeff Richards

Our lady of lies
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
(10/04/99)

As a priest, I agree with Christopher Hitchens' assessment of the situation in Croatia re: Medjugorje. No Catholic is required to give credence to any such phenomena, but many do. That they do is more a question for psychologists and sociologists, since this very human quest for magical phenomena to explain something in our lives is not limited to religious enthusiasm. UFO aficionados come to mind easily, among others.

But Hitchens simply has to invest his own vitriol and apparently anti-Catholic (if not anti-religion) judgments into the article. The undertone of contempt for religious devotional practice and history, and for those who practice it, is not journalism. He is preaching his own cynicism with religious zeal. His contempt continues to the local people as well, as if the history of the region over the last two centuries has no part in how life is lived there.

Hitchens wasn't writing a journalistic piece about either the pope, the Catholic Church, the local church, any local belief system or the socio-historic context of Croatia. He simply vented his own hubris and general attitude of contempt of the rest of the world in an easy essay. No doubt his pub bills were due and he had to make some money quick. Or is that simply my cynicism?

-- Father John Byrne
Baltimore

What would Christopher Hitchens have Mary say that would be more meaningful than what she told the children at Medjugorje? Does he blame her, or a spiritual hoax, as he sees it, for Croatian hatred? If his point is to expose hypocrisy, he needn't travel so far to find it. But if he wants to prove that Mary did not appear, he should realize that this can never be proved, or disproved.

-- Frank Dorman
Richmond, Va.

Reading Mr. Hitchens' vitriolic attack against the Virgin of Medjugorje made me feel like converting to Catholicism out of sheer spite. His hatred of any form of spirituality is palpable throughout his writing -- always dripping with words like "delusion" and "hallucination." His critique of the Dalai Lama, published in Vanity Fair a few years back, contained a statement to the effect that reincarnation is claptrap, without backing it up with a single informed study or expert opinion -- Hitchens thinks reincarnation is bogus, therefore it is bogus. Same with religious visions -- they are "hallucinations" because Hitchens believes so, and that settles it; anyone who sees or believes in miraculous visions is ipso facto "delusional."

I'm no Catholic -- I'm not even a Christian -- but Hitchens turns my stomach. He just goes to show that militant atheists are just as narrow-minded, uptight and bigoted as militant religious zealots.

-- Crystal Di'Anno
Oakland, Calif.

Steve Forbes finds religion
BY JAKE TAPPER
(10/05/99)

A fundamentally laissez-faire party that bribes voters with promises to manhandle every social "ill" that comes along -- what's wrong with this picture? Your article "Forbes Finds Religion" aptly demonstrates the schizophrenia at the heart of a Republican Party still overly fond of the Reagan era. Only now it's Steve Forbes (instead of Robert Dole) who's saying, "I'll be your Ronald Reagan." Forbes has gone from an amusing but relatively benign capitalist-cum-presidential hopeful to a downright loathsome huckster for whatever cause he thinks will sweep him into office. One imagines that Forbes couldn't care less about his own ideological inconsistencies or about the singular hypocrisy of ultra-conservative politicians that he's embracing -- it seems all too apparent now that he just wants something to show for all the money he's spent.

-- Teri Bostian