Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
The Old
Yorker
I very
much miss the quirkiness you speak of regarding The New Yorker
("Assessment") . Tina Brown has turned the magazine into just
another pandering, up-to-the-minute glossy ... sort of like George
without the big perfume ads and photo layouts. It's too bad. Now where do I go
for quirk?
-- Leslie Paigel
Chainsaw
Let Loose
About your
comment in the June 16 "Today's
Papers" about the "inordinate" amount of coverage that Al Dunlap's firing
got: This guy has become a corporate symbol--arrogant, cocky, boasting he can
turn a company around in seven months when others need years, eschewing
corporate jets for coach seats. In other words, a Lee Iacocca for the 1990s,
only instead of cars, he's been selling his own qualifications in his
never-ending quest to land other CEO jobs. As a business reporter, I can tell
you how hard it can be to write about business leaders, who are generally
careful, scripted, and pretty dull. Perhaps Sunbeam isn't much in revenues, but
Chainsaw Al is good copy--anytime. But I personally hope the Los Angeles
Times is right: that boards have grown tired of "slash and burn" CEOs. The
Sunbeam board's eagerness to get rid of Chainsaw Al is a marked contrast to the
story I've been working; namely, the United Auto Workers strikes against
General Motors in Flint, Mich. There are no clear winners in this one and no
sign when this might end. Even if it ends, it doesn't end, because GM's
problems are far from over.
-- Micki MaynardUSA
Today Detroit bureau chief
Of
Wealth and Men
James
Surowiecki needs to read more carefully. In "Real Things"
he criticizes a piece I wrote in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine
for assuming that American manufacturing is all but dead and gone. Then he goes
on to describe "the resurrection of America's industrial base." But I would
never have made such an ignorant statement. What I did say is that "the glitter
of instant wealth" being made on Wall Street is overshadowing the steadier
achievements of the people, wage-earners and businessmen alike, who used to
call themselves "producers." That's a cultural critique, not an economic
report.
-- Michael
Kazin Washington, D.C.
James Surowiecki
replies: Actually, I was responding to Kazin's cultural critique and not
whatever economic report he did or did not make. In pointing to the way Wall
Street now values industrial companies and other traditional businesses, I was
trying to show that in fact investors, at least, have a great deal of respect
for "the manufacture of useful goods and vital services" and not the "glitter
of instant wealth" (Internet fever aside). Unlike the 1980s, when the economy's
leading figures often seemed to be people like Michael Milken and Boone
Pickens, who were "speculators" in that classic populist sense of the word, the
people who get the most attention and respect today are almost all businessmen
who spend their time making things, not playing with other people's money: Bill
Gates, Michael Dell, or whoever. In that sense, the stock market boom is
founded firmly on the "steadier achievements" to which Kazin refers.
Marrying
for (Less) Money
Robert
McIntyre compares apples with oranges in his article "What
Marriage Penalty?" Of course it is true that for a given level of spending,
lowering one tax will require raising another. And if many taxpayers are
married, any new tax will be levied in part on them. However, the real question
is whether under the current tax code, all other things being equal, you are
better off living together unmarried than tying the knot. Unlike McIntyre's
un-PC example regarding blindness, marriage is a choice; for some, taxes will
feature in a decision to get married. And for two-income couples, getting
married nearly always results in a higher tax bill. You can consider that a
penalty or their just reward, but that's a different debate.
-- Roger Nord
Hard
Labor
I am writing to compliment
James Surowiecki on his simultaneously rigorous and humanistic analysis of the
General Motors strike ("Moneybox," June 10). He has pegged the contradictions facing
American labor with a precision sorely lacking in the mainstream coverage of
this episode. The negative stereotypes defining labor in the mainstream press
are easily invoked, but rarely is the positive rationale behind organization
defined beyond "worker dissatisfaction." Labor in the United States is by no
means perfect, and dealing with intransigent unions can be a byzantine,
harrowing, and expensive process. In many ways labor can be characterized as
decadent in its victory over the truly horrible conditions of the early
20 th century, and many of us wish to believe that the American
worker has been given too much and should be slapped back into line with the
realities of the global marketplace.
Surowiecki points out the shaky rationale for this particular strike but does
not end there, reminding us that the control we have over our workplaces and
the responsive nature of American management (in abiding by the bulk of these
rules or by factoring labor unrest into their long-term calculations) can be
directly attributed to the efforts of the American labor movement (regardless
of whether or not one-trick pony Ronald Radosh wishes to brand them all as
subversives). Compliments also for his reminder that those efforts are personal
and carry consequences for those who are willing to take the risk of
confrontation.
-- Stuart
Turner Washington, D.C.
The Man
Behind the Firing Range
In his
"Assessment," David Plotz characterizes Charlton Heston's life, both
on-screen and off, as unremarkable. The anecdotal evidence for this spurious
conclusion? Heston's prolific on-screen career is marked by an assiduous
research of his roles, a consistent and committed work ethic, politeness to
co-workers, respect to directors, and a humble self-effacement--all of which
have resulted in a prolific string of performances and superstar popularity.
His private life is characterized by an enduring, 54 year relationship with his
wife, an extremely close relationship to his children, and a preference for
studying history and writing (which Plotz admits he does very well). Ho hum.
One wonders what Plotz considers remarkable. That a man could have such a long
acting career in and around Hollywood, display none of his profession's
characteristic egotism and self-absorption, and maintain close, intimate family
relationships, including a 54 year marriage, strikes me as remarkable, indeed.
Heston's political involvement is summed up as the dabblings of a dilettante.
The examples of his rhetoric provided are labeled as "nasty," while
many--myself included--find them insightful as (only slightly) hyperbolic
illustrations of the absurdity to be found in modern American government. One
can't help wondering if Plotz would have found more remarkable signs of genius
in Heston's life if only he had obliged with more egotistical displays, a
family life in shambles, and political and social views to the left of
center.
-- Mark D.
Caudle Beavercreek, Ohio
Making
Letters Better
About the
June 12 edition of "Today's
Papers": at the risk that the author was "just kidding," I can't believe
that a serious journalist would think factual mistakes in a publication's
articles are comparable to factual mistakes in letters to the editor. Regular
readers tend to be the best editors of the factual mistakes in letters.
However, those same readers need to be confident that a publication's own staff
are held to a higher standard of accuracy. If not, we can rely on the
publication about as much as we can rely on the accuracy of news in Usenet's
alt.conspiracy newsgroup.
-- Peter
Clarke Seattle
Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
