Triple
Threats
Re Timothy Noah's
"Chatterbox" item "William Jefferson Clinton": Joel Achenbach explained the three
name serial killer phenomenon in a column included in his book Why Things
Are . Newspapers use all three names for such people to minimize the number
of people with similar names mistakenly thought by distant cousins, high-school
sweethearts, and potential employers to be murderers (and to minimize possible
lawsuits from the John Kennedy Gacys and Karla Onderdunk Tuckers of the world).
Of course, it's hard to imagine anyone making that mistake in Clinton's
case--"Honey, is that guy they're impeaching the same Bill Clinton who used to
sell tires over at Pep Boys?" So you are correct to say the three-namedness is
rather unnecessary here.
--Randolph B. Cohen Cambridge, Mass.
Time Is What's
Heavy
Atul Gawande throws out
some interesting hypotheses about the link between obesity and poverty in his
article "." Here's another: Perhaps the future is more valuable to rich people
than to poor people. Every time someone eats a piece of cake (or smokes a
cigarette), they are implicitly trading "future life minutes" for current
sensual pleasures. If we assume that almost everyone derives the same amount of
pleasure from a given piece of cake, then the amount of cake you will eat
depends upon how much "utility" you assign to your life in the future. Rich
people may be happier overall and may therefore attribute more value to the
"future life minutes" that they would be giving up by eating that cake. This
would cause millionaires to eat less cake (and to quit smoking and to exercise
more).
--Tim DeRoche San Francisco
The Real Skinny on
Being Fat
Re Atul Gawande's
article "Why Money Won't Buy Fat": Has Dr. Gawande never shopped for groceries?
Fifteen minutes in a grocery store tells the tale. Healthy eating is
expensive .
--Cheryl Kimball Middleton, N.H.
10,000 Ways To Say
"I Cheated on You"
I liked Michael Kinsley's article "." Here's a
political glossary that might be helpful in interpreting future lies.
"Indiscretion": Adultery.
"Prior indiscretion(s)": Adultery.
"Youthful indiscretion(s)": Adultery.
"Private matters": Adultery.
"Deeply private matter": Adultery.
"Zone of privacy": Adultery.
"Private lives of public figures": Adultery.
"Prior misjudgment(s)": Adultery.
"My poor judgment": Adultery.
"Inappropriate relationship": Adultery.
"Inappropriate behavior": Adultery.
"Not sex": Adultery.
"Not relations": Adultery.
"Strayed from my vows": Adultery.
"This poor sinner": Adultery.
"I'm no saint": Adultery.
"What I did was wrong": Adultery.
"Pain in my marriage": Adultery.
"Between me and my wife": Adultery.
"It gets lonely in Washington": Adultery.
"Power is an aphrodisiac": Adultery.
"It's none of your
business": Adultery.
--Tom Mashberg Boston
Lies Are Lies Are
Lies
Re Michael Kinsley's
article "Lies, Damned Lies, and Impeachment": If you want a starker example of
Republican lying, what about Clarence Thomas? Yes, I know that there is no
definite proof that Justice Thomas lied under oath to the Senate subcommittee
when he said that Anita Hill's allegations were false, but if the Republican
House believes that felony perjury is impeachable, aren't they obliged to
thoroughly investigate the possibility that Thomas lied?
--Srinivasan Sethuraman Princeton, N.J.
Guilty Is Guilty Is
Guilty
Michael Kinsley's article "Lies, Damned Lies, and
Impeachment" seems to argue that if one criminal "gets away with it," then all
criminals should be able to do likewise. That hardly seems defensible.
The only valid argument
is that you don't believe Clinton actually broke the law. If you believe that
he broke the law, then he must be held accountable. Whether that's now or after
his term is over I suppose could be up for discussion, although it's hard for
me to believe that any rational person could believe that in the current
atmosphere Clinton will be able to be an effective president (regardless of who
is to blame).
--Gregg Tavares Japan
The Greatest
President Since Nixon
More and more--and
particularly in Michael Kinsley's article "Lies, Damned Lies, and
Impeachment"--I notice that the main line of defense for the president is to
compare him to people who might be worse. This usually means members of the
opposing party. Isn't there any argument to be made that originates in some
redeeming value of the president?
--Ronald Keller St. Albans, W.V.
Laughing All the
Way to Court
As a sometimes evidence teacher, I read Bruce
Gottlieb's item "How Blind Must Justice Be?" with interest. He states, "If by
laughing [the] audience intended to say 'we don't believe you,' it is hearsay
and therefore inadmissible." This is wrong both as a statement of the hearsay
rule and as a prediction of the likely outcome in this case.
First, the rule: A large amount--probably most--of
hearsay is admissible. That's because the Federal Rules of Evidence (which
apply at the Microsoft trial) contain 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule, some
of them gaping. For example, Rule 807, the so-called "catch-all exception,"
permits hearsay to be admitted if it is the best available evidence of a
material fact and "the interests of justice will best be served by [its]
admission"--a big window!
Now, application of rule
to facts: If the question posed ever came up, I am sure the evidence would be
admitted, under Rule 807. That's because the danger that the out-of-court
statement is a lie (the primary danger against which the hearsay rule protects)
is negligible when it is the simultaneous statement of hundreds of people. This
is what my evidence professor, Kenneth Graham, referred to as "Surreptitious
Principle No. 1." A little bit of hearsay is bad, but a whole lot of it is
good!
--Fred
Bernstein New York City
