Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. All writers must include their address and
daytime phone number (for confirmation only).
No, It
Wasn't an Innocent Romance
Seth Stevenson, the writer
of "An Innocent
Romance," should get a grip. Adultery by one's parents, even
über parents like Bill and Hillary, is harmful to the child. It's not
necessarily the public disclosure of the adultery, it is the fact of the
adultery itself.
Hey, Seth, adultery is
generally a good sign that all is not well in the homestead; ergo, the fact of
adultery tells us the family is suffering. Therefore, the child is probably
suffering (yes, even one 3,500 miles away at Stanford).
Your
value-free ramblings, unconnected as they are to any sense of morality or
healthy shame, sound a lot like the greatest hits from a sophomore philosophy
seminar. Clever? Sure. But of any real value or connection to real people in
the world? Definitely not.
-- Kevin
Dillon Houston
Yes, It
Was an Innocent Romance
Well done!
A hearty thanks to Seth Stevenson for his piece "An Innocent Romance," which is
another blow struck for sanity in this war against Starr's sinister attempt to
manipulate our emotions. These are potentially dangerous times. This country
needs all the sanity it can get.
-- Maggie Bryan Los
Angeles
To Bonk
or To Boink: That Is the Question
Recently,
in a few articles (such as "An Innocent Romance") I have noticed the use of the
term "bonk" to refer to the act of sexual intercourse, especially in reference
to the president. I am impressed by
Slate
's attempt to use hip
language, but I'm afraid someone has been lax in his cataloging of the latest
terminology. As a college student familiar with all the latest urban lingo, I
believe the proper term to be used in these contexts is "boink." Not only does
the word itself sound more fluid, but I also think the connotation it has is
more appropriate to the meaning
Slate
intends.
--Theo
LeCompte Philadelphia
Government Trash, Nostalgically
David Plotz's reviews of the
paperback versions of the Starr report ("Flytrap's
Trashy Books") brought back fond memories of The Report of the
Presidential Commission on Pornography , a peculiar publication that is now
likely to be emulated.
Back during the Nixon
administration, Supreme Court decisions permitted some "obscene" materials to
be distributed only if they were combined with other matters that had
"redeeming social value." The publication of a government document called
The Report of the Presidential Commission on Pornography , or something
like that, presented an opportunity to sell the smut under an appropriate
cover. The illustrated edition included the full government report and garden
variety beaver shots, etc. It came out around 1971, I believe, and I may not
have the precisely correct title.
I recall that its technical
quality was poor, with a mimeographed text and low quality photographic
reproductions as well, which didn't match the text very closely. With modern
technology, so much more can be done. The video of the president's testimony
will also lend itself to interstitial illustration.
Sadly, my
copy of the "illustrated edition" was lost in a college dorm long ago and far
away. Perhaps one could be found at the Library of Congress?
-- Arthur
Stock Clarksboro, N.J.
Roll
With the Polls
Bruce
Gottlieb's "A
Snowball's Chance" ignores the obvious countereffects of polling. It is a
well-established fact that people will tend to slant their views and responses
to questions so as to better agree with what they perceive to be the majority
opinion. The perpetual quoting of Clinton's high job approval ratings helps
ensure that his job approval remains high. This phenomenon could unravel in a
similar way to that described in the article: As the polls drop a little, the
pressure to agree with the majority decreases, and the numbers have the
potential to drop precipitously. It would be difficult to determine which of
these phenomena is at work without careful study (i.e., without doing more than
just watching the polls and guessing).
-- Mike
Harkavy Richmond, Calif.
Government Gaming
I think Steve Chapman's
article "Vice
Is Nice" misses the point. Legal gambling is a good idea, since
people will gamble in any case. The state should regulate gambling as it
regulates other businesses, seeing that the odds are posted, that the games
aren't rigged, and that the promised jackpots are paid--and then leaving those
who want to do so free to waste their money gambling if they please. But
"legal" gambling is not what we have.
What we have is
state-sponsored gambling. The government either runs the games, as in
lotteries, or sponsors them and takes a large cut of the take, as in casino
gambling. By running the games, the state endorses the dubious value of
"something for nothing." Worse still, it deceives the people: Instead of
emphasizing the truth of the business--the long, long odds--it emphasizes the
unrealistic chance of winning big. (The ads for every state lottery prove that
point.) The state treats people not as citizens it serves and protects but as
suckers it will swindle.
If the states were not the
partners of the gambling interests, they would apply the same consumer
protection standards to legal gambling that they do to other businesses. As it
is, they connive in the deception of the public, because they share the
take.
I would
like to know if Chapman would favor privatizing gambling, so that anyone
who put up proof of the ability to pay off the pot could run a lottery, casino,
or whatever. That would take the government out of the gambling business
both ways. And I am sure that in that case, the government would make
sure not only that the games are honest but also that the people knew how long
the odds are.
-- Brian Abel
Ragen St. Louis
Steve
Chapman replies:
I don't
disagree with Mr. Ragen on the wisdom of getting the government out of the
lottery business, repealing special gambling taxes, and leaving the whole
business to the free market. But I would not let the best be the enemy of the
good. I think "state-sponsored" gambling is preferable to none at all--just as
state-owned liquor stores are a lot better than Prohibition.
The
Traveler's New Clothes
Anne Hollander--who wrote
"Travel
Without Clothes!"--might be interested to know that traditional Japanese
inns today provide clothes to travelers. All patrons are offered light cotton
robes, which can be worn around the hotel and in the surrounding neighborhood.
Heavier robes are provided in winter. Traditionally, the wearer would wear his
own traveling clothes to the inn. The clothes would be given over to be
cleaned, and the traveler would use the inn's clothes during his stay. When the
traveler left, he would again wear his own traveling clothes, which have been
cleaned. In this way, people could make weekslong journeys on muddy footpaths
with just one set of clothes, which would be washed regularly.
I doubt
that hotels are interested in having customers walk off with their clothes, as
Hollander suggests. However, it's conceivable that hotels could provide the
customer with a set of clothes while he's staying at the hotel. For example, a
business traveler could arrive at the hotel wearing a suit. The hotel would
provide casual clothes, and also underwear, socks, dress shirts, undershirts,
ties, etc. The business traveler would wear his own suit to business events,
perhaps paired with the hotel's shirts, socks, and ties. At the end of the
trip, the traveler would receive his own clothes back, now laundered, for the
trip home or to the next destination. Admittedly, providing women's clothes,
which are more complex, presents a slightly greater challenge. But this method
would make it possible to travel indefinitely carrying nothing more than a
paperback and a credit card. The hotel, which is assured of getting its own
clothes back, can offer more than just jeans and T-shirts from the Gap.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a closet full of Armani to go with your
$400-a-night hotel room?
-- Nathan
Lewis Tokyo
A Pubic
Mistake
Despite
Slate
's status as an online zine and all that that implies,
(erratic spelling, shaky grammar, much exposure of genitalia), I feel strongly
that you should probably aspire to at least adequate copy editing. I'm
referring to Scott Shuger's assertion in the Sept. 17 "Today's
Papers" that "pubic radio stations have tripled." Perhaps Shuger is simply
obsessed, like the rest of you media types, with pubic matters, or perhaps we
as a nation have finally entered adolescence, with a concomitant increase in
all things pubic. But please consult the Chicago Manual of Style : Any
sentence that contains the word "pubic" must also contain either the word
"Clinton," the word "Lewinsky," or the word "Thomas." I'm shocked to see such a
lapse in a zine of
Slate
's quality, and was considering canceling
my subscription until I realized that to do so would mean that I would not have
access to the upcoming "Explainer" on "What Is Oral Sex?"--and that I simply
could not swallow.
-- Floyd
Elliot Chicago
Address
your e-mail to the editors to [email protected]. All writers must include their address and
daytime phone number (for confirmation only).
