"Reviewers Reviewed" Reviewed
Your
regular column "Summary Judgment" bears the subtitle "Reviewers reviewed"
but, in fact, it does not resemble the "review of reviewers" that used to run
in Spy as much as it resembles a "review revue" (a title previously used
by the paper I work for, the Stranger , when we condensed reviews from
The New Yorker , Rolling Stone , the Village Voice , and
others into three-word blurbs to run in a table atop our film listings). The
summaries read as rather uncritical, so you're not really reviewing them. Don't
you think?
--George
Fredrickson
Where Do
You Want to Go Today?
The
inaugural "Webhead" column ("Push Me, Pull You," by Bill Barnes), while
informative, is nothing more than an extraordinarily long advertisement for
Microsoft. So much for the vaunted independence of Slate from its benevolent
dictator of a parent.
--L. Kersten
Generation Screwed
Michael Kinsley's stated
refusal to participate "in the deadening conformity of the culture [of]
cyberspace" takes an unusual form in his article "Social Security: From Ponzi
Scheme to Shell Game." Perhaps I'm the only one out here who thinks
Generation-X bashing has lost its sheen of originality, but that's just what
Kinsley indulges in with his reference to the "particular generational
self-pity" of Gen-Xers.
Hell, if my ire at forced
participation in the Social Security program is self-pity, then sign me
up--particularly if that might somehow allow me to get out.
I have two questions for the
federal government regarding Social Security. First, is it a mandate[d] savings
program? OK, fine--simply provide me with quarterly reports on the yield of the
fund and the value of my share in it. (It's totally unlikely that the
government could invest as successfully as I could with my own money, but never
mind that.)
Or, is it a transfer payment
to the less-fortunate elderly? Fine, then simply means test it. (I'd prefer to
help poor old folks by contributing to charities of my choice, but never
mind.)
However, as it stands, my
hard-earned cash is simply being handed directly over to retired people, many
of whom are much better off than I am--and I'm never going to see dollar one of
a payout from this so-called "investment." What the hell is that?
Social Security is a Ponzi
scheme, but it's even worse: It's a national DISsavings plan--and it is
robbery. Forget privatization and other attempts to "save" the program.
Mandated retirement savings was a bad idea that has seen a disastrous and
immoral implementation. Let me out of the cursed scam now, and I'll forfeit
every penny I've contributed thus far.
I'll even
wink at the Generation-X bashing.
--Michael Fuchs
Selfish
Prohibitionists
In "The New Politics of the
Drug War," Jefferson Morley doesn't tell the whole story of the absolute
failure of prohibition. I didn't find his conclusions surprising, but here are
the brutal facts of modern prohibition:
1) Drug arrests are at record
levels and rising. There were about 1.5 million drug arrests in 1995. This
figure is 41 percent higher than in 1991, and 65 percent higher than in 1986.
Clinton has continued the hysteria.
2) Marijuana arrests by state
and local law enforcement in 1995 totaled 588,963. This is the highest level of
pot arrests ever recorded by the FBI, and represents an 18 percent increase
above 1994 arrests. The total number of pot arrests under the president who
supposedly "didn't inhale" is an astounding 1,450,751!
3) Of these arrests, about 86
percent were for simple possession, and about 14 percent were for
sale/manufacture. One pot user is now arrested every 54 seconds in the United
States, yet adolescent-use rates are still rising!
I'm not sure what more even
needs to be said in this case. Saying, "It's not working" seems to induce the
"OK, Let's Spend (and Tax) Even More" response. "Let's Spend (and Tax) Even
More" is indeed a popular argument, and it's well funded by the diverse
industries spawned by the hysteria. Corrupt politicians don't exist only in
Colombia, and they are far from being the only beneficiaries of
prohibition.
These
people all very much fear the world of personal freedom I propose. Their
arguments usually have to do with the morality of letting others make their own
(occasionally stupid) choices, without government intervention. Deep down,
though, most of them aren't thinking about other people.
--Jim
Ray
