Letters.

Food Fight

I read with great interest your article "Beef Wars" (January/February 2001). Clearly, the deadly strain of E. coli that is found in meat and other foods has claimed many victims, both among the consuming public and in the meat industry itself. There are no easy answers to eliminating this hazard from the food supply, though there are many steps along the food chain where improvements are needed.

"Beef Wars" challenged the effectiveness of the government's sampling program for the deadly E. coli bacteria and, instead, called for rigorous testing at many points along the processing line. While that sampling program may be imperfect, it is a huge improvement over the "don't look, don't tell" policy in place before the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak. At that time, there was no mandatory microbial testing of any kind in the meat and poultry industries. Random testing by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the most important tool available to identify and remove potentially deadly meat from the market.

The authors wrongly say that consumer organizations reject consumer education--"the best weapon we've got"--as a solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. We and other consumer groups vigorously support tough government programs--and the authority to recall tainted products from the marketplace--along with educational efforts. The Center for Science in the Public Interest and other consumer groups urged USDA to put safe handling information on all packages of fresh meat and poultry, a move that was challenged in court by several food industry trade associations. Unfortunately, the authors of your article made bold--but untrue--assertions and never contacted the leading consumer organizations to set the record straight.

CAROLINE SMITH DEWAAL
DIRECTOR OF FOOD SAFETY
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Washington, D. C.

Flunking Bubba

I was surprised you gave Clinton an "A" on economic policy ("The Clinton Scorecard," December 2000). It was indeed an excellent economy in the 1990s but certainly not his doing. The current boom started about a year and a half before he smooth-talked his way into the Oval Office and began eight years of claiming credit for the miracles of the private sector, the computer revolution, and the end of the Cold War.

Clinton said "the era of big government is over," and deserves some praise for accepting Republican ideas (welfare reform, Greenspan, free trade, some deregulation). But he often attacked the free market by hiking the minimum wage, torching Microsoft and the NASDAQ, raising taxes and then predictably squandering the surplus, launching a vague and costly ergonomics regulation, and, lest we forget, the 1993 economic stimulus boondoggle and 1994 health care takeover.

Fortunately, the economy was too strong for Clinton's depredations, but there may still be a heavy cost. As Robert Samuelson recently noted in The Washington Post, Clinton failed to address the looming crisis in middle-class entitlements and mercilessly demagogued those who tried. He was, in Samuelson's telling epitaph, "a do-nothing president"

FLEMING SAUNDERS
Burke, Va.

Vintage Chips

While I enjoyed the piece by Erik Wemple, "Decontrol Freaks" (December 2000), an article on relative technology should try to get the facts straight. The statement--in referring to technology restrictions to Russia--that "While the old 486 couldn't even play Solitaire," made for nice hyperbole, it is also complete and utter nonsense.

In 1993, the 80486 was hardly the dinosaur chip it might appear to be today. Windows 3.1 ran quite nicely (or as nicely as it could) on a properly configured 486 system with some memory. I managed to play Win3.1 Solitaire on a 10 MHz 286 backup system with but two megs of RAM. But then I am a computer tech and had it tweaked to the limits. The 80486 is a stable and still potent CPU, an operating system that is not a memory hog. In fact, in some ways it is rather superior to some of the latest, literally, hot (and power-hungry) chips. And, in comparison to what the Russians had at the time, it was nothing to sneer at. It was far more powerful than what we used to design the Space Shuttle and most of the weapon systems of the time.

G. D. GOODMAN
via e-mail

Needing Angry Men

I take exception to Ta-Nehisi Coates' article on Louis Farrakhan ("The Last Angry Man," January/February 2001). He criticizes Mr. Farrakhan for precisely the wrong reasons.

When a black leader encourages black men not to be absentee fathers to their children and encourages black women not to fornicate with men they aren't prepared to marry, he is saying what most needs to be said--but rarely is. The overwhelmingly white-controlled media is reluctant to criticize black men for sexual irresponsibility lest they appear to be oblivious to historical experiences which helped produce this phenomenon. But if black males were told flat-out that fathering children, and then refusing to be a real father to them, was the greatest black problem in America today; maybe this would shock them into reconsidering their behavior. Shaming is a social tool that, under the right circumstances, is invaluable.

Since blacks are more religiously inclined than other social groups, it is unfortunate that black pastors don't speak out forcefully on this subject. But like other pastors, they prefer to create a "feel-good" atmosphere among their congregants rather than speak truths that would temporarily wound but, eventually, help to heal.

REO M. CHRISTENSON
PROF. EMERITUS,
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Oxford , Ohio

Jeb's Folly

The article "Locking Up The Vote" in the January/February 2001 issue raises a question. If, as the article states, "If you commit any felony--be it murder or lying on a customs form--you never again get to have a say in the election of the president...," then did the wife of Florida Governor Jeb Bush get to vote in November's election?

According to the St. Petersburg Times of June 22, 1999, Columba Bush falsely stated, on a mandatory declaration form handed out on her flight from France to Atlanta, that she had purchased $500 worth of goods, according to the Bushes and a U.S. Customs service spokesman. In fact, she had purchased $19,000 worth of clothing and jewelry. She was given a second chance to make a true declaration, but lied a second time. She was fined $4,100.

Did she have to meet the 23 qualifications for enfranchisement and submit the application to the state clemency board, as did Rosetta Meeks? Or is the article wrong in saying that lying on a customs form will cost you your vote? Or perhaps there's a different system for African-Americans and the governor's wife.

SAM DUNCAN
Wayne, Penn.

Nicholas Thompson replies: The U.S. Customs office explains that indicting everyone who lies on a customs form for a felony would tie up the courts for years. So some people, like the governor's wife, get off with misdemeanors' or civil fines.

Kept After Class

A generation back, Richard D. Kahlenberg's story might have helped us avoid some of the disruptive solutions we have tried in providing democratic education to our children ("Mixing Classes," December 2000). Yes, we must improve and adequately fund schools in poorer (as well as all) neighborhoods; yes, we must provide equal, adequate education to all students. But charter, magnet, and alternative schools also put poorer students at the bottom, since their families often will not pursue such opportunities.

There is one area that Americans haven't yet connected directly to their schools, and that is the quality of life in neighborhoods and communities. We need to encourage community life and develop pride of "ownership" in communities. If the country could do this, I feel that most residents would respond and participate in kind, with gratitude and determination. Hope is an elusive answer, but one well worth pursuing. It could help us all.

JOAN CAROL POOR
College Park, Md.

Shot Ourselves in the Foot

I heartily endorse your incipient campaign against the NRA, but the idea of enlisting "liberals" as members is worse than very bad. It's terrifying. I quit as a member (I was a mole) because I simply couldn't bear the thought that my $35 fee was supporting a cause that is akin to declaring war by handgun on every man, woman and child. In order to make a difference, as you suggest, you would probably need to enroll 2.5 million new liberal members and that times $35 would land them something like $87 million, a particularly ugly idea.

LEWIS S. DABNEY
Chestnut Hill, Mass.

History Lesson

I pride myself on knowing English history fairly well, having read Antonia Fraser's Kings and Queens of England cover to cover. However, I am mystified by Charlie Peters' reference to Prince John ordering the assassination of the "legitimate heir to the throne" ("Tilting at Windmills," January/February 2001). Brother Henry died before marrying; brother Richard's belated marriage was probably never consummated; brother Geoffrey died before Richard did--are we talking about Geoffrey's children? If so, since their father never claimed the throne, I don't see how their claim could have been stronger than John's.

Lisa Aug
Frankfort, Ky.

Charles Peters replies:

Arthur, Geoffrey's son, was the rightful heir to the throne by the law of primogeniture. "That he was murdered by John order was not disputed at the time or thereafter," writes Winston Churchill in A History of the English Speaking Peoples.