Home Column | All the News That Fits | Orwell Watch | Reviews | Mailbag | Contact Me | Archives | Links
Scarlet Letters
Mailbag
Here's a chance for you to contribute.
What I love about the web is the opportunity to share my thoughts with others. But I also like to hear what others think and to exchange ideas. In some cases, I also may respond to the comments. I welcome all viewpoints, including those that disagree with my own - as long as we agree to disagree, we can keep talking, and that's the most important part.

But first, you have to WRITE me! Otherwise, this page will be filled with fan letters from my mom. 
 

SELLING OUT OUR MOTHERS' DREAMS

     I just wanted to give you my "two cents" on a job well done with "Selling Out Our Mothers Dreams." I will admit that I am not a loyal reader; I actually came across "Selling Out" by accident with a search engine query. But, as someone who has experienced first-hand the nightmare of a controlling, violent relationship, I just wanted to say that you really hit the proverbial nail on the head. Congratulations for speaking your mind and for putting it all out there for others to see. I think that the more people we have on the Internet who publish information like this, perhaps the more the message will get through that women don't stay because they "like getting abused" or because they are masochists; but because the system truly oppresses them in one way or another and at various times. Yes, even the cops! And the judges. And the prosecutors. And the woman's family. I know because I've been there. But enough of my ramblings; and kudos to you for writing such a hard-hitting, truthful, insightful article!
     Name withheld by request

THE LAST FEW GASPS

     I enjoyed reading your column on this film, but there is one small thing you may want to correct - the character Branaugh plays is Reinhard "Heydrich," not "Heinrich." He became known as "the butcher of Prague", and British-trained Czech parachutists killed him in that city not long after the meeting which is the subject of the film. They themselves died a few weeks later, after being trapped in the crypt of a church. The 60th anniversary of their deaths was marked in Prague last June.
     Wayne Cochrane, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Editor's note: Mr. Cochrane is absolutely right, and he has my thanks for pointing out my error. The column has been corrected.

DEATH IS TOO GOOD FOR HIM

     I only just read what you wrote about the McVeigh execution. I agree with you 100%. I studied capitol punishment and confirmed what you said about expense and at that point (a couple years ago) 76 people had been let go from death rows in America (since1970) because new evidence cleared them. Of course it should be noted that only a small percentage of (wrongfully incarcerated) inmates get the attention that can potentially clear them. Finally, I have often said that if my choice was a "life" in prison or to be "put to sleep," I would much rather move onward. 
     I was looking for Oklahoma News about an 8-month old girl who was recently raped (in 3 places) in her own home. She suffered a broken pelvis and ankles for starters. She was thankfully placed in foster care after her hospitalization (hopefully the solution is better than the problem in this case). I am particularly horrified by crimes against children and want to know if the parents have been charged (they claim they were in the next room and never heard anything) or if an alternate theory exists or what. Apparently nothing is going on or the follow up isn't sensational enough to be newsworthy. Anyway I came across your article and had to write. You hit every point I tend to make against the death penalty and it is always refreshing to see that others comprehensively understand such a viewpoint.
    Otto

TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN COMIC BOOK

     I couldn't disagree more with you re: Spider-Man.  I'm 50, have seen hundreds of movies, am a writer as well as a lawyer, and I thought the movie was swell. I appreciate your take on it, but if you want to consider a horrible movie, let's talk about "Attack of the Clones." Now there's bad writing.
      Jack Thompson, Miami

THE WRONG LESSON

     The article "The Wrong Lesson" left me with such a confusing swirl of strong emotions that it's very difficult to pick which one to stand upon as my platform for responding.  I hope you will forgive me (as I do not have the formal training and experience that you do) if I have some difficulty staying on track.
     I would have titled "The Wrong Lesson" as "Journalist's Recipe for Slimy Politician Pie", or perhaps "How to Be a Scumbag Politician for Fun and Profit".  While I confess that I'm giving you the full ration of grief accumulated from reading several articles in the past few years that revealed the same basic thought patterns as this article, may I still say that I find your implied attitude with respect to politician behavior appalling to the point of stupefaction.
     My favorite quote in the article is "...no one is more hated than the press".  Why do you suppose that this is true?  From the text of this article, if I may be forgiven the luxury of predicting, I would say that you think it is because of the press's tendency to pick people to pieces in a very gory, public way. I do not believe that this is the reason that the press is hated.  This is merely an irritant.  If it were the core reason, only the people in
 the public limelight, the targets of such unhappy attention, would have a reason to hate the press.  The rest of us would simply be ashamed of our morbid fascination. And yet nearly everyone I know hates the press and none of them are very famous.
     In talking to my co-workers and in thinking about this issue myself, I have come to the conclusion that "The Wrong Lesson" illustrates why the press is hated.  While you seem to be a very nice person (I draw this conclusion from the upbeat and happy tone of your web site), you seem to be blissfully unaware of how poisonous your attitude is.  You think that you are being open-minded and pragmatic.  What you are is biased and distastefully accepting of unforgivable behavior, except when indulged in by those who oppose your political dogma.
     In nearly every facet of life, there is what I refer to as a happy balance. This balance lies somewhere between dying of thirst and drowning, asphyxiation and oxidation, the vile slime that pass for politicians these days and the fairytale heroes that in a perfect world they would be.  You have clearly, along with most of the liberal press (as opposed to the conservative press who have their own set of problems), gone way down the line to the complete slime end of the scale to the point where the fairytale heroes are lost over the horizon.
     To quote the article: '...the American public is used to politicians lying to them. It's come to be expected.' and: 'It wasn't Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky that bothered the public - it was the lies, the coverup, and the attempts to dodge responsibility.' and: 'Lies, adultery, "spinning" - we're used to that. Sheer self-interest, ... that's unforgivable.'
     To the liberal press, this is perfectly all right.  You're simply 'telling it like it is'.  What you forget it is that we as citizens no longer really have a clear and reasonable choice as to what we would have as politicians. Few of us are capable of sacrificing our own safety, security or welfare for the abstract notion of political ethics, which is what we would have to do to be rid of them.  We repeatedly pick slimeballs as politicians because the entire political machine has now evolved to such a state that a good, honest man will be chewed up by it and only a slimeball can prosper within it.  You mistake our dreadful choices for acceptance and approval.  Even when patently reasonable ideas such as term limits are put forth, we reject them as a populace because we are afraid that any novice politicians that might result would not be able to compete with the experienced old scumbags for public trough resources.  The reality of what an American politician was supposed to be (inexperienced, amateur, and short-term) is gone and forgotten.  Or do you actually think that the populace likes having to vote for someone like Ted Kennedy?
     If Clinton's rating did 'soar' to 90%, it was due to factors outside of the scandal. The public wasn't ready to forgive him. They were just tired of Starr's ineptitude at getting the job done. It's not unusual for people to turn on the police when they don't seem able to do their job.
      "Your whole article makes it clear that you believe that 'character doesn't matter.'  In my reading of your article, the only thing that you clearly and unequivocally condemned was self-interest.  This is the 'lesson' that you choose to "teach" the politicians.  You endeavor to further evolve the political system by training the politicians to lie to us more efficiently.  You dismiss all of their behavior apparently as human nature in an ongoing attempt to inoculate us into accepting the kind of inappropriate behavior that we can expect from the kind of political candidates that the press generally approves of.
     It used to be that the press was the fourth branch of the government, beloved by anyone who understood its role in a free society.  It was the all-important branch that kept the other branches in check simply by letting us factually know what they were up to and leaving us to draw our own conclusions.  In a very real way, the press used to be what helped keep us free.
     Now with its 'praising by faint damning' mentality, the press is part of the mechanism that is building centralized machines of political power, and turning the rest of us into sad sheep desperate to simply protect our own little plot of grass.  You don't give us the facts anymore.  You presume to hand us our value structure complete and self-contained. In truth, most of us would be satisfied if you just didn't support your
 venal political compatriots; never mind condemning them. 
     I smiled at the one thing that you really clearly condemned Condit for: self-interest.  I suspect that the reason that that was the one crime you felt he could not be forgiven was because it violated the disgusting deal that such politicians have with you of the press.  The deal was supposed to be that you in the press will give such politicians a pass (well, maybe just draw a little blood to help sell papers), no matter how vile their behavior, as long as they pursue and promulgate the activist press agenda.  That was the real crime, wasn't it? He can't be pushing your cause if he's pushing his own.
     The public, confused and terrified in a world full of atomic bombs, terrorists, economic upheaval etc. have been convinced by the press to follow along with the notion implicit in articles such as 'The Wrong Lesson'; having a slimeball represent us is a good thing.  It's what we all need in today's real world.  And we should only turn on them when they violate our devil's deal.  No matter how much they lie, betray their loved ones, demonstrate that their oaths are meaningless, it's all right.  Just as long as they vote for more welfare, protected status for women, protected status for gays, factionalizing multiculturalism (the whole one-size-fits-all values package), we should all like them.  We should all vote for them.  After all, if we don't get our slimeball in office that will promulgate and codify our dogma, somebody else's slimeball might get in there.
     We sheep of the republic are not stupid. Though it has taken a slow process of years and is difficult to exactly get a handle on, we are quite aware that we've successfully been made to sell ourselves out due to a lack of spine. But you of the press are mouthpieces for the pimps, telling us what we do for a living nowadays is something we should like. If we're gonna be what we are, we're gonna want a good, strong pimp to represent us, now, won't we?
     When you write articles like "The Wrong Lesson",  with its tacit approval of almost any behavior for the larger objective of the party line, you're holding a mirror up to us, showing us how vile we have become. How vile you have helped us become.
     And we wonder, every day, once you have us resigned to accepting the Clintons and the Kennedys and the Condits, what will be the next thing you try to convince us is "normal" and "reasonable" and "reality". Who will you convince us to sleep with next and on what politically correct pretext?
     This is why we hate you, the press.
     Steve

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO EPONINE?

     I just finished watching the Depardieu/Malkovich Les Miserables with my  daughter, and wondered at the end, as you did, what happened to Eponine's death scene. I did like the film much better than the Liam Neeson version,  and ran across your essay when I went to the web to find some reviews.  It turns out that the film was shot in two versions, a four-hour English  version and a six-hour French version. (The French version is available in DVD, and if it has subtitles I'm going to get it.) At any rate, I'd be willing to bet that Eponine dies properly in Marius' arms in the long
 version, for I'm pretty sure that the person who Thernadier sends to spy on the newlyweds was not Eponine but her sister.
      Other stuff: The musical is still the best version of the book.  (Please,  read it! - find a translation. It will pull you in; you'll not be able to escape, I promise...) I think that Hugo endowed the work with a universiality that no film version has been able to duplicate - simply making it longer and longer won't do the job, for the novel is so massive that a film would need to be many times the length of any of the existing versions to begin to duplicate its detail, and there is so much more to it than the overwhelming wealth of detail.  It is the addition of music that adds a dimension to the portrayal of the story which brings it closer to Hugo's vision. I think that that must be what opera (a genre about which I am virtually illiterate) must be all about.
      Pat 

BLOOD FROM A TURNIP

      ... I did want to explain to you a bit about my taxes this year as you say the richer you are the more worried you must be. 
      In the last two years, through some good investments in our country and hard work, I've generated about $600k in income. While I only made about 15% of that in wage, the rest can be considered a one-time occurrence.  I've done what every 22-year-old I know wouldn't. I bought a house (mainly for room and taxes), reliable transportation to get to/from work, and saved the rest for investing in the community in real estate and back into the market when we somehow recover from this epidemic we're in.
     Last year, 35% of my income went right to Uncle Sam.  That was about $80,000.   More than I had made at all my previous jobs combined.  When I purchased my house, 2% of that sale went to the city in which I live, and every month my $29 cell phone bill gets about 30% in federal surcharges and taxes added on. 
     This year I'm going to be paying 39.6% of my income to taxes, or $150,000.   Again, more than I've made in all my previous years of employment.  That means that the government will have made nearly a quarter of a million dollars in taxes off of me, but it doesn't stop there.  20% of my house payment goes to local taxes for services such as schools (50% of that).  Its funny though, I have no kids and had to pay for the small college education I did receive, as well often had to pay for supplies for classroom activities in my grade schooling.  If teachers are so underpaid where did all this money go?  Those little yellow buses don't burn that much diesel do they?
     Rich people aren't worried about paying taxes.  We know we're screwed from the start.  I can tell you by being "here" there are no simple tax shelters or loop holes.  The biggest is one you already have - children.  I recently got my $300 back from the IRS and wondered why my girlfriend, who made far less, got 44% of her taxes back and I got barely half a percent.  I don't have any politicians in my pocket, nor do I feel I even have a voice in our government.  How else could people so easily discriminate against those who may work hard or make wise investment choices in this way?    They money I now have gets about 3% per year in interest.   Of that, 39.6% will go to taxes, so it makes about 1.8% APR sitting there.   1.8% is less than the average rate of inflation however, so technically now that the government has taken all my money, and takes what my money is making by being invested back into the economy, leaving me with a slowly eroding sum.
     What great advantage is it to have this money then and not spend and flaunt it if it's going to be gone anyway?   I recently read a liberal rag from Texas which my sister pointed out to me (the east coast liberal she is).   In it, the author stated that during all these tax cut talks the RICH were getting a 35 PERCENT TAX CUT! Ohh boy, I was just waiting by my mailbox for my 35% mind you.   I believe the lady read the source wrong as it was only proposed to lower the capital gains rate TO 35% FROM 36% and not taxes BY 35%.
     If you fancy a bit of humor, take the total taxes you paid that year and divide it by your gross income. This will let you know exactly what you've paid out.  Our society seems to think those who have 10 kids, are single moms, and own their own crack house should be paying less than those who work hard every day, don't overburden society with children when they are not ready, maybe get married and stay that way, and who get paid well for doing so.
     I agree with you more than tax breaks should be done - the whole process is flawed.   No flat tax would be fair to the poor, nor is such a graduated scale fair to those who pay enormous amounts of tax.    One solution I do like is to take the welfare moms that aren't on crack and put them to work babysitting kids for those who do work.  This way our tax money they live off of can help more than one family.
      Sorry for taking so much of your time, I tend to keep typing when I'm mad about something.   I wish you and your family well this holiday and hope that our government will spare us the cost of paying for Clinton's sex affair investigations this year in our 1040s.
      Jon

Note: unless there is serious profanity or insanity involved, I edit letters at little as possible. If you do not wantyour letter to appear on the website, please indicate that in your letter. Thanks!