THE HIGH PRICE OF ELECTIONS
“The issue isn’t whether the Democrats or the Republicans are more corrupt. It is U.S. politics that is corrupt.” ESTYN L. EDWARDS Phoenix, Arizona
Greed and lust for power by the political parties have deterred serious consideration of campaign-finance reform [NATION, Nov. 11]. It is time to stop the rhetoric and reduce the role of special-interest money in politics. Meaningful campaign reform will help mend our broken democracy; out-of-control money-power moves us closer to being a plutocracy. The most thoughtful and eloquent promoter of campaign-finance reform is retiring New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley. Come January 1997, one of the best things President Clinton could do would be to appoint Bradley to head a bipartisan commission to come up with ideas for reforming political campaigns and their financing. Democracy demands that our government leaders serve the public-interest majority, not the special-interest minority. PAUL WHITELEY SR. Louisville, Kentucky Via E-mail
Campaign funds are given to politicians and political parties to influence votes and get favors. So if the politicians who get the funds do not vote the way the donor wants, aren’t they taking money under false pretenses? STEWART M. LEE Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania
A few years ago, hostility toward Japanese Americans was so strong that I thought they were going to reopen the detention camps here in California. Now talk about the “Arkansas-Asia Connection” is broadening that hatred to include all Asian Americans. I cannot help making a comparison to the anti-Jewish sentiment in Nazi Germany when Jewish people were successful in business. Today Asians are a success story. Do people applaud President Clinton for improving foreign trade with Asia? No, blinded by jealousy, they complain that it is the Asian Americans who are reaping the wealth. What have John Huang and the Lippo Group done that is so bad? They hired American expertise to build the much needed infrastructure for new towns in Indonesia. Do Americans say thank you for your business? No, they paste up photographs of Huang as if he were a convicted criminal. CARMEN HARTONO Oakland, California
I don’t understand why the millions of dollars used for campaigning can’t be used to end hunger and disease or to save the environment. I am very skeptical of those people in Washington who are supposedly trying to make this a better country. It seems to me that all this money being donated and spent goes to benefit them and not America. Is this the government I should look forward to in the future? JENNIFER A. SIMMEN, age 15 Gainesville, Florida Via E-mail
You stated that “The Clinton White House is on the block to a degree that leaves even Republican influence peddlers breathless.” What leaves me breathless is the hypocrisy of a President who ignores his own promises of campaign-finance reform, shamelessly and directly involves himself in raising $250 million (some of which may be illegal) and then, just days before the end of his last political campaign, once again calls for reform. I’m left breathless but not surprised. What else should one expect from a man (and his wife) whose capacity for hypocrisy seems boundless? DAVID F. WILLIAMS Minnetonka, Minnesota Via E-mail
Most campaign money comes from the rich. How can the regular working class stand a chance to be recognized by its representatives? Big corporations seem to be able to bend rules and get away with it. ROBERT ZANOTTI Putnam Valley, New York
TRIALS OF AN ORDINARY GUY
I must commend you on your straightforward article about Richard Jewell, who was accused and then cleared of planting a bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta last summer [SOCIETY, Nov. 11]. You didn’t paint Jewell as an angel, nor did you show the FBI to be a bunch of total ruffians. Most important, your story showed us how easily any person in the U.S. can become enmeshed in a battle with the system. Every day people are mistreated by bureaucracies, their lives and names dragged through the mud without their having any recourse even after they are cleared. Our system often holds you are guilty until proved innocent. I pity Jewell’s mother for the way she was treated. I hope she and her family will accept an apology from me, as a citizen of the U.S., for the way our government has treated them. SCOTT D. ZANE Galena, Illinois
Your assessment of the Jewell case shows the extraordinary one-sidedness of the media. It seems everyone involved–except the press–was guilty of poor judgment, possible rights violations, skulduggery and potential libel. The media use the First Amendment as a shield for their lack of ethics, their use of yellow journalism and their reporting of rumors with reckless disregard for the damage caused to the people involved. ROBERT V. RIGHTER JR. St. Louis, Missouri
I can tell you that Jewell has lashed out at all the wrong people. I am the newspaper reporter portrayed by actor Dennis Franz in Caught in the Crossfire, a 1994 NBC-TV movie about my foolish attempt to help the FBI in an investigation of organized crime. Jewell is angry with the media, but it is entirely possible that if it had not been for the media’s interest in his story, a frustrated FBI, unable to find any other suspects, would have referred his case to the U.S. Attorney. Jewell could have been indicted and compelled to prove his innocence in court.
What the FBI did to Jewell was investigate him. What the media did was report on the investigation. Unlike me, Jewell was never arrested; he was not indicted on information the FBI knew or should have known was false; he was not required to hire a criminal lawyer to defend himself at trial for fees he could never pay. And he will never be asked to explain why he was acquitted by the jury or why he was ever indicted in the first place. These are questions potential employers ask. The answers are not easy to explain. I think Jewell should call and thank the FBI for the way it handled his investigation. Then he needs to contact the media to thank them. I would swap places with him without hesitation. R.E. GUS PAYNE New Orleans Via E-mail
STAY ALERT FOR LYME DISEASE
In the Good News section of your Health Report [NOTEBOOK, Nov. 4], you said, “Parents who fear Lyme disease can rest easy. Treatment with antibiotics cures infected children within four weeks.” This is considerably different from the conclusion published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reporting on a telephone survey that tracked 201 patients with early Lyme disease who had the most obvious signs and symptoms (circular rashes and swollen joints, which show up in only 60% to 70% of those afflicted).
Of course, early diagnosis and treatment significantly increase the chances for a successful outcome. Extrapolating the results of a phone survey of people with early and obvious Lyme disease to all afflicted with the disease is irresponsible. Parents shouldn’t fear Lyme disease; they should actively involve their children in tick-bite prevention and be vigilant for its symptoms. However, we all should fear medical misinformation that could lead to a cavalier attitude about disease prevention. THOMAS FORSCHNER, Executive Director Lyme Disease Foundation Hartford, Connecticut Via E-mail
PAIN AND GENDER
As medical anthropologists who study the cultural construction of disease, illness and healing, we read with interest your story on the differential effects of kappa opioids, a form of opiate commonly used to ease labor pain [MEDICINE, Nov. 11]. These results interpreted as “gender” (read biological) differences may well be the result of varying pain thresholds and cultural expectations. Is it surprising that women in U.S. society require less pain medication than men do? No. Is the difference due to hormone receptors or to women’s higher pain thresholds? A final question: How does one go about “measuring” pain? Could these methods reflect the lesser value placed upon “nonbiological” variables? AMY J. WARD KRISHNAKALI MAJUMDAR East Lansing, Michigan Via E-mail
It doesn’t take a highly esteemed medical expert to conclude that women handle pain better than men. The men in my life, including my husband and my father, would not take a Tylenol for pain if their lives depended on it. They do, however, make life hell for everyone else with their nonstop complaining about how bad they feel. As for labor pains, the human species would become extinct if men had to give birth. After one man gave birth, took six months to recover and then shared his excruciatingly painful story with all his buddies, reproduction would come to a halt. CARRON S. SPOHRER Ely, Iowa
CHANGE WITHIN THE FBI
As attorneys for FBI forensic chemist Frederic Whitehurst, we would like to call your attention to some facts that were not mentioned in your story on him [NATION, Nov. 4]. You portrayed him as a “rogue” FBI agent. Far from acting in a “rogue” manner, Whitehurst has been working through official channels to ensure that the FBI crime lab meets the highest legal and quality standards. He has been and still is supported by numerous employees in the FBI. You quoted an unnamed official as saying Whitehurst was “an impossible kind of guy to work with” in the World Trade Center-bombing case. But the FBI rated his work in that case as “exceptional” and “very professional.”
You said Whitehurst is “eager” to talk with defense counsel. That is not correct. Since 1993, he has spoken with defense counsel just twice–each time with the full permission of the Department of Justice and the FBI. Change within an institution such as the FBI is not easy to accomplish. But it will be achieved as a result of the integrity of law-enforcement officials like Whitehurst and many others who have the courage to adhere to their oath of office. STEPHEN M. KOHN DAVID COLAPINTO Washington
COMPETING ANTIDRUG PROGRAMS
Your report on different school antidrug approaches [EDUCATION, Nov. 11] failed to mention that in addition to its antidrug message, the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program teaches lifelong decision-making and learning skills. The program has always utilized thought-provoking role-playing exercises similar to the one in your story’s opening paragraph, one you seemed to suggest was an innovation by a new antidrug program called Life Skills Training. D.A.R.E. also promotes the philosophy of community policing by bringing young people and the police together in a nonthreatening, positive environment that fosters mutual trust and respect. This establishes a partnership between young citizens and the police that over time can help solve problems in our communities. I’m sure the Life Skills Training program is well-intentioned, but let’s not promote it by tarnishing the reputation of D.A.R.E., the most positive and respected police prevention program ever developed. WILLIAM F. BROWN JR., Chief Police Department Lompoc, California
Psychologists have known for years that D.A.R.E. programs simply do not work. Research has shown that although kids learn about drugs, that experience does nothing to insulate them from using them. D.A.R.E. programs have gained a kind of bureaucratic inertia: politicians and parents think they work, and since they know of no other alternative, they continue to throw money away on these useless programs. The best form of inoculation against drug use in minors is peer counseling. Kids will listen to and respect their peers when they tell them to “just say no.” Not only is that a cheaper program to execute, but it works. AMY FORD Pittsboro, North Carolina Via E-mail
SEEING JASPER JOHNS AS A WHOLE
Congratulations to Robert Hughes for his sensible assessment of the hysterical hype surrounding the Jasper Johns retrospective [ART, Nov. 11] at the Museum of Modern Art. While the emperor may not be entirely naked, a G-string hardly qualifies as regal attire. GEOFFREY BENT Glen Ellyn, Illinois
The primary aim of the printed word or the artist’s creation is to communicate something of the artist’s world view to those who read or see his work. In the case of Jasper Johns, this line of communication is, as Hughes points out, frequently complicated by “pseudo-philosophical guff.” A review need not compete in complexity with the subject reviewed. One does not have to be altogether a philistine to see which artistic creation deserves to be hung on the living-room wall and which should be relegated to the bottom of the birdcage. (The Rev.) MYRNA L. HAVNER Plentywood, Montana
TRADE-MISSION EXPLANATION
In your article “Were Trade Missions for Sale?” [NATION, Nov. 11], you stated that I suggested that I be added to a mission headed for South Africa in 1993 because I had contributed $2,000 to the election campaigns of President Clinton and South African President Nelson Mandela. I have never requested to be included on a Commerce Department trade mission, and I have not made such political contributions. I am president of a not-for-profit relief and development organization operating in various countries throughout the African continent. My agency does not engage in business of the type promoted by the Commerce Department’s trade missions, nor would our operations benefit from my going on such a trip.
You have simply misunderstood the memorandum I sent, which suggested an American businessman as a prospective participant. Occasionally I am asked to identify productive participants for such sessions because of my knowledge of Africa. For this reason, I suggested an individual because of his significant international business experience. His political contribution was noted only as a final point after a substantial list of professional credentials. Your mistake has caused embarrassment to me and my organization and impeded our vital humanitarian work in Africa. C. PAYNE LUCAS, President Africare Washington
