ArticleIP_20695.txt

   
   
      
         
            

            
               Fallwell's That
Ends Well
            

            Jacob Weisberg in "" is missing the point about the
reaction to Jerry Falwell's outing of the "gay Teletubby." While Tinky Winky
may be queer and proud, and while Tinky Winky might be your best fantasy and
your worst nightmare, that's not the why Americans are shaking their heads.

            Personally, I couldn't
care less if Tinky Winky or Bert or Batman is gay. What does offend me is that
bigots such as Falwell and other Christian right-wingers feel the need to
"save" our children from supposedly evil influences, such as gay Teletubbies.
If a gay Teletubby teaches tolerance and acceptance to children, that's a good
thing. What we should be afraid of are Falwellian bigots who preach hate and
division.

            
               --Tyler Green
            

            
Washington

            
               
                  Real
Numbers
            

            I am writing from Brazil where the statements by
Paul Krugman about Arminio Fraga in the to "Don't Blame It on Rio ... Or
Brasilia Either" have been front-page news for a week. While I am pleased that
you have published to Krugman's note, I am distressed to see that

                  Slate
                has not taken responsibility for its actions in the same
way that Krugman has. 
                  Slate
               's editors must take a large measure
of responsibility for this "bagunça "--Portuguese for mess. As Krugman
notes in his apologies, he is an economist, not a journalist. Given the
seriousness of the charges--trading inside information for the gain of Fraga's
former employer--shouldn't 
                  Slate
                offer Fraga an apology as well?
Leaving Krugman to take all the heat of a very angry Brazilian public is not

                  Slate
               's finest demonstration of journalistic ethics.

            The greatest tragedy of
this episode is that of the Brazilian situation is one of the most positive and
accurate I have seen during the past six months. He makes clear what few have
been able to--the vicious cycle of lack of confidence and interest rates. I
wish the public discussion of his article had focused on solutions to the
dilemma he posed rather than on an extraneous appendage.

            
               --James R.
Hunter
            

            Los
Angeles

            
               War, Blockades,
and Peace
            

            Broadly speaking, I agree with the points David
Plotz makes in "." Congress has the sole power to declare war, and a bipartisan
Congress and the president have cheerfully ignored that clear constitutional
fact. But I think Plotz may be mistaken in saying the recent Iraq bombing
needed authorization. As I understand it, the war between Iraq and the United
States, begun in 1991, has not yet ended. The shooting war of 1992 ended with a
cease-fire, not peace. Indeed, in the years following, we have enforced a
blockade on Iraq. Blockades have always been regarded as acts of war. And the
cease-fire is conditional: if Iraq permits inspections, doesn't fly
planes in certain areas, and doesn't threaten our troops, then we will
hold our fire. So, if the war was constitutional in 1991-92, the war is still
constitutional now--nothing in the resolution specified a time limit.

            Alas, the president has
not made this case. Whenever Iraq claimed (quite rightly) that arms inspections
were a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, we could and should have responded,
"Bugger your sovereignty--this is war." Somehow, I can't imagine Clinton saying
that.

            
               --Andrew
Solovay
            

            
Belmont, Calif.

            
               Diary of a Mad
Professor
            

            I must say that the "" by
the anonymous assistant professor portrays the day-to-day stresses and
anxieties of academic life through the eyes of a shockingly irresponsible
instructor. The way in which the author views both graduate and undergraduate
students reveals unhealthy personal insecurity. Teaching is a profoundly
ethical vocation: Students entrust their emotional and intellectual well-being
to their professors, and those who command such authority must recognize their
responsibilities to their students. The stresses of an academic are truly
heavy, but why should it be different from any other profession? Does the
author think that teaching in the university involves a lighter load than
working for a corporation? Why? Furthermore, the author is fortunate enough to
have a job when so many of the author's fellow humanities scholars are without
employment.

            
               --Jack W. Chen
            

            Somerville, Mass.