On ‘Sentry of a Century: Norman Mailer, 1923–2007’: Contrary to our tribute, “Mailer’s novel ‘Why Are We in Vietnam?’ mentions Vietnam in one place other than the title. The final sentence reads: ‘Vietnam, hot damn.’ Since I was soon to ship out for said country myself, I remember it very well.” Michael R. Kerley, Atlanta
I was both warmed and saddened by your coverage of the legacy and relevance of 1968 in “The Year That Made Us Who We Are” (Nov. 19). Although I was inspired by the political and social passions of Martin Luther King Jr.’s followers, the activism of Robert Kennedy and the burgeoning of the feminist movement, I am disappointed by our current ambivalence toward many of the same issues. I can’t help but wonder if the true lesson of 1968 is that despite our efforts, we couldn’t change our own national shortcomings. Ironically, the frustration of ’60s idealism may have spawned the nonrevolution of today’s passionless acceptance. Etan Bednarsh New York, N.Y.
Tom Brokaw may be reluctant to apply a definitive label to the “boomer generation,” but I’m not (“The Earth Behind a Man’s Thumb”). How about “The Great Pretenders”? Back in the late ’60s, we stood right on the precipice of true change for the better—we said that we believed in no more going to war, ending poverty, protecting the environment, eliminating the nation’s racial and social divides, and saving our souls. Forty years later and the ’60s are cold and dead, the ’70s blocked out in our collective consciousness like some embarrassing moment, and Martin, Bobby, Che, the kids at Kent State and Jackson State, those noble self-immolating Buddhist monks and Czech student Jan Palach gave up their lives, and for what? Men and women who passed me joints on the beaches of southern California and whispered pledges that “things will be so much better when we take over” now drive SUVs, wear designer coats and don’t give a damn about Dick Cheney or that their cell-phone records are not private. Cindy Sheehan is derided for having a broken heart, and these same boomers who protested the Vietnam War in college (while applying for military-service deferments) voted against John Kerry and apparently raised their kids to do so as well. We were right there and it was within our reach. What a bunch of phonies we proved to be. Richard Raskin Encino, Calif.
David Gates was trying to make a case for the strong musical influences in “Tuned In, Turned On,” but to say that 1968 didn’t produce much film “worth remembering” is a bit much. While it wasn’t as seminal a year for film as 1967, I’m sure many people do remember “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Funny Girl,” “Oliver,” “The Lion in Winter,” “Bullitt,” “Rosemary’s Baby,” Zeffirelli’s “Romeo and Juliet” and “The Producers” from 1968, to name just a few. Jerry K. Jensen Hallandale Beach, Fla.
Enough with all the boomer worship! Many editors at NEWSWEEK must be boomers. And you’d like to think that if you weren’t the greatest generation, then you were the coolest. Sure, boomer Zeitgeist sells, but what about those of us in our 30s and 40s—your readership for the next few decades? And, no, I’m not asking for articles on how amazing Gen-Xers are. I’m just saying all the articles on how great the ’60s were are exhausting. Sara Weinstock Honolulu, Hawaii
With its effective emphasis on the momentous and disruptive events of 1968, NEWSWEEK’s collection of articles on the impact and influence of the 1960s packs a wallop. Yet you fail to make one essential point: that the United States scorned the lessons of 1968. Four years later, in the presidential election of 1972, George McGovern, a thoughtful, honest man, understood those lessons, recognized the quagmire of a failed war, and dared to campaign on issues that could have restored America. But the country turned from McGovern’s promise, opting instead, by a massive majority, to grant a second term to a president who had already demonstrated his ineptitude, dishonesty and blatant disregard of what 1968 had taught. What you refer to as “America’s defining moment” occurred not in 1968 but in November 1972. Now we see, exemplified in the present administration, the ominous destination of the road then chosen. Is it too late to take seriously the lessons of 1968? Roland A. Duerksen Oxford, Ohio
I read “Injection of Reflection” (Nov. 19) with mingled disgust, anger and dismay as I reflected on the continuing barbaric need to kill another human being expressed by many Americans. No murder could be committed with as much premeditation as a capital-punishment execution. If, as proponents of capital punishment typically contend, we execute to deter, then maximum deterrence would occur if executions were witnessed by as many people as possible. Undoubtedly, that would mean televised executions, and the first televised execution some evening during prime time would almost certainly be the last execution. Frank Cameron Highland, Utah
Your article “Injection of Reflection” reported that the Arizona attorney general became physically ill after witnessing a gas-chamber execution in 1992. I was that attorney general, and it never happened. I had campaigned on reinstating the death penalty in my state. Twenty-nine years after the last execution in Arizona, Don Harding was executed for the brutal murders of two businessmen in Tucson. All the local media were present, and radio and TV stations provided live coverage from the 10 o’clock news through the execution well after midnight. Although the media witnesses thought it necessary to meet the press afterward and give their impressions and opinions, I thought otherwise. I found the experience sad and serious, but necessary. I thought it best to leave quietly after having done my job, and that this would speak more to this issue than any words I would have said. A reporter began circulating this alternative story some months later. Upon confrontation by my staff, he admitted he made it up. Thank you for allowing me to clear up this urban myth. Grant Woods Arizona Attorney General (1991–1999) Phoenix, Ariz.
You made a very convincing case in your article linking a person’s initials to her preference in other things (" ‘J’ My Name Is Jessica, And I Like …," PERISCOPE, Nov. 19). However, I can’t help but wonder why my Smart, Sweet, Sensitive, Seventh-Grade daughter, Sarah, is still scared of Spiders and Snakes! Eric Fielding Garrison, N.Y.
In “Lost in the Cornfields” (Periscope, Nov. 19), Peg Dunbar says she is resigning as a county chair in the John Edwards campaign in Iowa because “I don’t see him going anywhere and I don’t go with a loser.” Whatever happened to supporting a candidate because you believe in what he is trying to accomplish? Dennis Freres Palatine, Ill.
I was perplexed to read that the American Spectator’s reportage of the Clintons in the 1990s “largely came up empty, and most of the stories were ignored by all but the most avid Clinton antagonists” (“So Happy Together,” Nov. 19). That statement is inaccurate. We published a great deal on the Clintons that was read widely and has never been found to be in error. Reported around the world was our Troopergate story, which led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. There is also plenty of evidence that we broke the Travelgate story about Governor Clinton’s insertion of an Arkansas state trooper into the CIA contra operation originating in Mena airport, and even the 42nd president’s proclivity for cheating at golf. And the work we did on the Clintons’ fund-raising shenanigans with Asian money still has relevance today. In his May 17, 2001, New York Times column, William Safire wrote, “I found the early Spectator material useful in writing columns that helped trigger a reluctant investigation and ultimate conviction of both felons.” He was referring to the Clintons’ famed donors, John Huang and James Riady. Does the above really sound like we came up “empty”? R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. Editor in Chief and Founder The American Spectator Arlington, VA.
Although I am not an Olympic athlete, I am a competitive runner who was able to run through my pregnancy without any difficulty (“Giving It Everything They’ve Got,” PERISCOPE, Nov. 19). The result is a 10-year-old boy who is at the top of his class and loves to run. There are too many Americans who don’t know what their bodies are capable of doing because they have never pushed themselves physically. To overstate the risk of running is to further deter safe athleticism. Donna Anderson Danville, KY.
We represent Marc Edward Thompson, who was mentioned in “The Scorched- Earth Obsession” (Nov. 5). It is true that Thompson was convicted of arson, and that one of the prosecution’s theories at trial was that he made it appear as if his mother set the fire to obtain insurance money. However, neither the prosecutors nor Thompson’s defense counsel saw fit to mention the fact that under Thompson’s insurance policy, he was prohibited from collecting any insurance money if a relative, such as his mother, was found to have set the fire. Even more important, neither the prosecutors nor Thompson’s defense counsel at trial mentioned the fact that all the laboratory tests the police conducted on the material collected from the fire were negative for accelerants. Thompson’s case is currently on appeal. Carol A. Brook, Deputy Director William H. Theis, Chief AppellateAttorney Federal Defender Program for the Northern District of Illinois Chicago, Ill.
In “The Worst Week” (Nov. 19) we said that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his final speech at the Masonic Temple in Memphis. In fact, the speech was at Mason Temple at the headquarters of the Church of God in Christ. NEWSWEEK regrets the error.
