Letters.

Overtime

I have been General Counsel of The Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR) / SEIU for 10 years. CIR is a labor union that represents 10,000 resident physicians around the country, including in Washington D.C. I have just finished reading Robert Worth's wonderfully titled article, "Exhaustion That Kills" (Jan./Feb. 1999).

The issue of excessive hours worked by residents has been in the forefront of CIR's work for many years. We fought to bring the hours regulations into existence in New York state 10 years ago. But we could not afford to rest and enjoy the victory. Immediately afterward we had to oppose the hospitals' efforts to overturn those regulations through the courts. And from then until now we have been in a long struggle to get effective enforcement of the regulations. Most recently we are concerned about new efforts to weaken or remove the regulations.

I am familiar with all the arguments and have read many articles, both scholarly and journalistic, on the subject. I was impressed by Mr. Worths article. He addressed the excessive work hours comprehensively, yet in a manner that made it accessible to the general public. It was impassioned and precise, a wonderful combination especially suited this issue.

We are grateful to The Washington Monthly for putting a much needed spotlight on this important issue and for assigning a writer of Mr. Worths caliber to the project. We are hopeful that this quality article will obtain some notice by policy makers in Washington, D.C. and move the issue forward there. Mr. Worth's suggestion about the Health Care Financing Administration's possible involvement is an excellent one, one that we will pursue.

HARRY FRANKLIN
General Counsel
Committee of Interns and Residents
New York, N.Y.

Low Blow

I applauded your December "Tilting at Windmills" item deploring the growing incivility and reminding us of the need to avoid being mean and self-righteous about the shortcomings of others. That's why I was sorry to read Martin Berger's letter in the same issue. Mr. Berger took issue with a previous Monthly article by Ben Lieberman criticizing the federal low-flow toilet mandate. Like Berger, I own two low flow toilets and I agree with him that Mr. Lieberman's article overstated the case against them. But Mr. Berger then concluded his letter with a cheap shot to the effect that Mr. Lieberman "was unusually full of what toilets are designed to dispose of." Yeah, that was cute, but it was also gratuitously nasty, both of Mr. Berger and of you. As the editor, your choice to print that portion of Mr. Berger's letter did nothing to advance the level of civil discourse. Mostly, of course, I enjoy your magazine; I've subscribed for years.

CHARLES S. BROWN
Arlington, VA

More, Not Less

Charles Peters argues ("Tilting at Windmills," Jan./Feb. 1999) that universities must re-direct their efforts from research to teaching, and that they must find ways to teach their students about a range of new, complex issues ranging from global warming to the global economy to interdisciplinary courses on "the political, economic, and scientific elements of today's problems."

To accomplish this, we must generate the knowledge and understanding of these issues. That means, if anything, more, not less, research. We cannot teach about global warming without understanding it--and I'm not sure we do yet. We cannot teach about the global economy--and I'm not sure we do yet.

It is too easy to suggest that the problems of understanding and knowledge can be solved if only some institution would undertake some specific reform, particularly when that reform, on its face, sounds plausible. But in this case, the consequences would be a reduction in our knowledge and understanding, and, therefore, a diminution in our ability to help our students understand the complexities facing them today and in the future.

DONALD A. COFFIN, DEAN
Division of Business and Economics
University of Northwest Indiana
Gary, IN

Out of Touch

It should give you sufficient pause just to state ("Tilting at Windmills," Jan./Feb. 1999) that the economic establishment has accepted the opinion that full employment and inflation are not mutually destructive. Since when has conformity to an idea in economics ever been the criterion for successful thought?

Two main differences make the current situation different from prior circumstances. First, so much of what we buy is now imported from low-wage countries. (The ever-growing deficit in current account and indebtedness to foreign countries will be a huge and possibly insoluble problem shortly.) Secondly, the power of labor unions has been drastically curtailed and the specter of long strikes and huge wage raises, justified or not, is, at least temporarily, a thing of the past.

Your thoughts are what have moved me from party registration to independent. Both sides (although I must say that liberals, at present, appear to be more so inclined) seem to stick to outmoded theorems without adjusting for changed reality.

PAUL ENGEL
Las Vegas, NV

Judge Not

I've long admired Charlie Peters' common sense and decency, so I was bothered when he attacked Rep. Bob Barr by comparing him to Heinrich Himmler. Why is it that liberals preach tolerance and condemn the politics of personal destruction, then turn around and vilify their political opponents as Nazis and racists? Would it be OK for critics of Peters to say that his physique--and his philosophy--were "eerily similar" to Josef Stalin's?

STEVE SHIRLEY
Helena, MT

On Target

I've subscribed to The Washington Monthly for 15, maybe 20 years and my mind wouldn't be as clear without it. I'd like to be more articulate about that, but as I once told Walter Shapiro, being from Los Angeles I don't feel compelled to be articulate about my inarticulateness. Nonetheless, the mini-essays on "journalistic objectivity" in the Jan./Feb. 1999 issue were eye-opening, refreshing, wonderful and most important, right on target. I'm sick of the focus on who's gaining power and who's losing it: It's like watching the stock market all day long, or worse, the Hollywood power game. I'd love to see you expand on this theme in book length, or at least apply the format to other topics such as the Theater of (Absurd) Impeachment. Keep up the good work.

DAVID RENSIN
Tarzana, CA

I found all of the essays by the various contributors to the Symposium ("Just the Facts," Jan./Feb. 1999) interesting and well done. But you needn't have bothered with any of them with the exception of Art Levine's wonderfully scary scenario--"The President Under Siege: Lucy and the Japan Crisis." That said just about everything that needs to be said about the state of journalism in the so-called new age.

I take issue, however, with one of Walter Shapiro's statements, that "White House reporters are prisoners with golden handcuffs ... forced to take their cues from press handlers and spin masters as they react to the torrent of the often manufactured news emanating from the Oval Office. Granted, there are major stories not being adequately covered in the press, but the focus of most of this real news is outside the capital"

My problem is that the "real" news outside the capital usually connects with something inside the capital. If it's no-news time at the White House, couldn't these people get off their duffs and start covering stuff that is really vital to us out here in the "real news"? If their problem is that they are specifically assigned to the White House, then those with any gumption could be following up on the "real" news in their spare time, instead of attending National Press Club luncheons and parties hosted by the very people they are supposed to be covering.

I am afraid Mr. Shapiro is just making excuses for a journalistic class of elites who have been becoming part of the problem!

MARYELLEN LAKE
Chester, MA

Heir Cut

Now that Bob Livingston has resigned, most of what Alexandra Starr wrote about him ("The Speaker," Dec. 1998) becomes of but transitory importance. For a small few of us, however, it remains of lasting importance that one inaccuracy in her piece not escape correction.

Bob is not in fact descended from the Robert R. Livingston (1746-1813) who helped draft the Declaration of Independence. Rather he traces his lineage to Philip Livingston (1686-1749), the second lord of Livingston manor on the Hudson River. The drafter of the Declaration descended from Philip's younger brother, likewise named Robert (but 1688-1775), of "Clermont" Therefore he belongs to an entirely different branch of our family than does Bob.

Whatever other infidelities Bob may have committed, he would never, I feel sure, claim any but his true forbears. Descent from the second lord is quite good enough.

ROBERT GERALD LIVINGSTON
Chevy Chase, MD