Letters to the Editor.

Sam Day Made a Difference

In the 1970s and early 1980s, Sam Day was my mentor, my editor, and, at times, my co-author on articles for The Progressive about the dangers of commercial nuclear power plants and nuclear proliferation ("Sam Day, 1926-2001," Editor's Note, March issue).

He guided me through the scientific jargon of this formidable field so readers could understand the myriad problems faced by radiation workers and the public in this country riddled with leaking radioactive waste dumps, accident-prone nuclear reactors, and spent fuel pools.

Sam was an expert at cutting through mounds of research to the essence of a story. And he encouraged me to stay with a story until it was finished.

I remember Sam suggesting I write about a hypothetical accident involving a meltdown at the Zion Nuclear Station's spent fuel pools in Illinois. That piece took fifteen months and five drafts to complete--with the technical assistance of leading scientists around the country.

But Sam never gave up. He persisted with questions, edits, and comments-until the article was finally published in September 1980. Sam wanted to get the story out, but more than anything, he wanted to get the story right. As always, Sam Day made the difference.

Catherine Quigg Barrington, Illinois 

Paycheck Protection Problems

I enjoyed David Moberg's article about the labor movement ("This Time, Labor's Ready") from the February issue. I was just wondering, however, about the reason for opposing the "paycheck protection" law.

I support McCain-Feingold in its current state, but it seems fairly hypocritical to claim that requiring unions to get permission from their members to use their dues money on campaign lobbies is a violation of free speech while labeling corporate donations corrupt. Is there any ideological basis to this claim, or is it merely a way to keep Democratic support for the bill intact?

Two things have become evident through the debate over McCain-Feingold: First, politics will not be free from dirty money until publicly financed campaign laws are passed on all levels of government, and second, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Jay Trucker Collegeville, Pennsylvania 

Molly Made Me Sick

Molly, we love you, but your closing reference in "After the Putsch" (February issue) regarding your vote--and mine--for Ralph Nader made me feel like throwing up. You said these votes were cast "in the smug certainty there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the major party candidates," and you also suggested, I guess, we are somehow now responsible for Ashcroft. So bear with me while I respectfully disagree.

The argument is a brief one: Read Howard Zinn's article in the same February issue.

Terrence M. Bresnahan Berkeley, California 

Tourette's Stereotype Disappointing

It wasn't that I didn't get Kate Clinton's joke from her March column ("The Dubbing W."). I did. But if she would have made that crack about "Bush-induced Tourette's syndrome" in front of me, I would have asked straight-faced which tics she's experiencing: throat clearing, humming, sniffing, rapid eye blinking, shoulder shrugging, head jerking, or lip licking? These are some of the most common symptoms of Tourette's syndrome--not cursing or violence, as her column implied.

It's disappointing to see The Progressive magazine join vapid sitcoms in perpetuating false stereotypes. Tourette's syndrome is a movement disorder like Parkinson's disease that affects as many as one in 200 children, mostly boys. The involuntary cursing, called coprolalia, afflicts fewer than 15 percent of persons with Tourette's.

Paola Scommegna Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

Shocked by Rothschild's Review

Matthew Rothschild, in his review of Nancy Unger's new biography of Senator Bob La Follette ("Feet of Clay," February issue) tells us that "biographers come either to love or hate their subjects, and I'm afraid that Nancy C. Unger became contemptuous of old Fighting Bob." Did Rothschild and I read the same book?

In my considered judgment, Unger's study is beautifully balanced, especially in her assessment of La Follette's character and his political contributions. In the book's epilogue, Unger summarizes La Follette's character as "proud, uncompromising, shrewd, resourceful, and inspired." No contempt here!

Professor Unger's detailed and well-documented study provides a focused look into the fascinating life of America's foremost Progressive.

Fran Polek Gonzaga University Spokane, Washington

Having enjoyed the praise of a number of reviewers for my sensitivity to the subject of my biography, Fighting Bob La Follette: The Righteous Reformer, I was shocked by Matthew Rothschild's review, which calls me both "sneering" and "contemptuous." Rothschild claims to be "prepared to accept that La Follette had his fair share of foibles and fragilities, and there's no need to hide them," and yet presents my work as if it were primarily a litany of La Follette's faults rather than an effort to present a balanced view of this complex and--I'll say it--unabashedly great man.

As I set out plainly in the introduction and confirm in the epilogue, I agree with William Allen White's assessment of La Follette: "When all is said and done, he [La Follette] and the insurgent group are the best element down here--the most sincere, the nearest to the people, the most truly representative of our national opinion. And it is too much to demand that they be immaculate white giants. Almighty God carves out his ends with dull tools--always."

I agree wholeheartedly with Rothschild's observation that viewing La Follette in the light of his various flaws and handicaps "may be more of a reason to praise him rather than to fault him." I argue that La Follette was both flawed and great, yet Rothschild gives short shrift to the multitude of pages devoted to recognizing La Follette's many important contributions and admiring his determination and endless hard work. Rothschild is so determinedly outraged at any and all criticisms that he denounces them where none exist. "Unger," he asserts, "did not look kindly on [La Follette's postwar] foreign policy ideas," and cites as proof my statement that "In increasingly strident tones, La Follette denounced economic and political imperialism." La Follette's stridency was, in my opinion, quite praiseworthy, as the rest of that paragraph detailing La Follette's outrage over the Senate's proposed neglect of war-vanquished Germany makes evident. Rothschild also missed the point of my statement that "La Follette is tragic because he is no longer recalled as a constructive statesman who strove for a more democratic social order but `merely' as a figure of undaunted courage, unlimited perseverance, and enormous dedication" (emphasis added). My point was that La Follette should still be recalled as a constructive statesman, not that he never was one, as well as a man who would "stand up and risk all."

I admire La Follette enormously, so much that I wanted to provide not a hatchet job (as Rothschild implies) or an uncritical tribute but a biography worthy of its subject. I hope that Progressive readers will view my portrait of the magazine's founder in the spirit in which it was clearly intended.

Nancy C. Unger Santa Clara University Santa Clara, California 

The editors welcome correspondence from readers on all topics, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material previously published in The Progressive. All letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Letters may be e-mailed to: [e-mail]. Please include your city and state.