Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________SINS OF THE FATHERS BY ROS DAVIDSON (07/29/98)

First, Salon prints an article on polygamy in Utah so badly researched that it ludicrously claims Mormons are against birth control, caffeine and makeup -- not to mention stating that the Kingston polygamist group is a "sect of the Mormon Church" (equivalent to saying that Lutherans are a "sect of the Catholic Church").
Then, Salon prints a tiny retraction on its letters page, and fixes a few of the more grievous errors in the article, with no mention of the modifications on the article page itself.
It was only two weeks ago that Salon itself decried such timid online retractions (in "Let's Get This Straight: How do you retract a story online?"). C'mon, guys, do the right thing. Leave the errors in there, tagged with corrective information, and a header at the top of the article explaining your gaffes. If Time can do it, why can't you?
-- Sean Luke
College Park, Md.
Editor's note: Sean Luke brings up a good point. We have struggled at Salon to formulate a correction policy that is honest and open without being overly complicated or fussy. In response to this letter we have amended the policy again: From now on, when an error is serious enough to warrant a correction notice, Salon will run that notice on the Letters to the Editor page. In addition, a note will appear on the corrected story indicating that an earlier version contained an error or errors, with a link to the correction notice.

_______________LUGGING THE GUTS INTO THE NEXT ROOM BY BRUCE SHAPIRO (07/30/98)

Must we have another diatribe on the government covering up the horrors of war? Bruce Shapiro's thesis that the public was disserviced by the government's censorship of what was happening during World War II is disingenuous at best.
Would public support for the war effort have been affected? You bet. World War II was, as it has been called many times, the "Last Good War." Like every war, it started over economics, but it became a true battle between good and evil. And it was a war that could not be lost. Sparing the public scenes of eviscerated bodies was the right choice. This was understood. Today's media, with its bloodlust and desire to repulse rather than educate, can't understand restraint.
I, for one, would like to sit and watch the news without having to worry about my children seeing something that will give them nightmares.
-- Rick Sala
The "Army study" reporting that only 15 to 20 percent of GIs actually fired their weapons in battle was prepared by S.L.A. Marshall and has long since been discredited. The real "weakness" in American infantry was not a reluctance to shoot, but the Army's insistence on single-shot or semi-automatic rifles, as opposed to submachine guns. That was what was corrected later.
There was certainly reluctance to kill -- the Germans had no trouble finding volunteers for firing squads; Americans had to be ordered to participate (and the American Army executed a tiny fraction of the number of German soldiers executed by their "comrades") -- but the lack of firing, to the extent there was any, was more often the product of not being able to see the enemy in the chaos of modern war than a reluctance to shoot. In the opening sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" it seems to take an agonizingly long time for the Americans to start shooting back, but close observation of the scene shows that even here, looking up at a bluff crawling with the enemy, it's hard to single out anyone to shoot at. Omaha Beach was -- in contrast with the hedgerows just inland, the Huertgen Forest, the Italian ridges or countless Pacific islands -- relatively open for a World War II battlefield.
One of the reasons for the silence of the veterans was touched on by Stephen Spielberg when he said the picture should not be seen by small children. I think the veterans of the war felt the same way. Those most interested in their experiences were their own children. My father, who had been wounded on Okinawa, and my RAF pilot uncle who had been shot down and spent two years in a German POW camp, would tell us only the most innocuous stories of their wartime experiences, and not for want of being asked. To some extent, silence became a habit for the veterans, and, of course, after a while we stopped asking.
I think their intent was to talk of their experiences when their kids were old enough. That was the case in my family, helped, no doubt, by the fact that I wound up in the Air Force myself. One day, out on a sailboat, my father and uncle suddenly started talking in detail about what had happened to them in action, now more than 25 years before. I suspect many other such conversations began occurring around then, but many veterans had died, others become estranged from their children and much of the educated middle class that had fought World War II avoided Vietnam, so there were fewer direct reasons for sons in their early 20s to ask their fathers once again, after the long interval, what they did in the war. Indeed, there were reasons not to ask.
-- Edward Furey
Bruce Shapiro made a glaring omission from "Lugging the guts into the next room" when he failed to mention the one major slip in suppression of military news. The Tet Offensive in 1968 was covered in a manner that let most Americans get a glimpse of the real horror that goes with warfare.
The reason for that slip in military censorship has never been explained. Perhaps it was because the military success was so great that the news was allowed to flow so freely. After all, this was the big attack that the enemy had taken years to supply -- and they gained nothing for it. The images showing that successful defense were allowed to flow back onto the TV screens at home.
Those same images also let people see a small part of what warfare is really like, and the effect was to undermine what support for the war still remained. "Saving Private Ryan" is not the American education into what warfare is like. That happened 30 years ago. The movie simply explodes the myth that Vietnam was somehow different in its effect on those who fought it. Warfare has always been traumatic for anyone in direct contact with massive killing -- the military means to an objective.
-- Hal Wadleigh
Kudos to Salon and Bruce Shapiro for the lacerating (no pun intended) article on the history of censorship of "The Good War." I have one caveat, though. The remark about the failure of "Life Goes to War" to print pictures of dismembered corpses is lifted directly from Paul Fussell's "Wartime" (page 269 in the recent Oxford trade paperback edition). The Steinbeck quote is on page 286. Perhaps Mr. Fussell should have been mentioned: Few American writers in the last 30 years have written about war and its dehumanizing aspects. If it was theft and not an unsurpassed instance of synchronicity, at least you're stealing from the right people.
-- Donald Powel

_______________ENGLAND'S DECADENT DELIGHTS BY DOUGLAS CRUICKSHANK (07/29/98)

Ah yes, there is a reason I still turn to you first thing every morning. It's not Camille Paglia, no explanation needed. And it's sure as hell not Courtney Weaver, whose sole talent seems to be wrestling "hot" topics into tepid trivia. Sometimes the irritation level climbs dangerously high, and I contemplate abandoning you for more salutary pastures. And then along comes something wonderful, such as this phrase: "a morning mist cloaks the sheep meadows, liberally sprinkled with the pea-witted beasts." Salon has its share of pea-wits, but it's still a morning must.
-- Kitty Colton

_______________SLICE OF LIFE BY MAURINE SHORES (07/16/98)

I have noticed that there has been in my experience of growing up in North Carolina two contingents on caramel cake icing. My mother now makes the kind with cream, but when we were growing up she made a kind that was much easier and to me much more like candy. I have recently resurrected her old recipe and enclose it here for you to try. (I'd double it if I were you.)
Ingredients
1/2 cup butter (the term is interchangeable with margarine to my mother)
1 cup brown sugar, packed
1/4 cup milk
1 1/2 to 2 cups sifted confectioner's sugar
Melt butter in saucepan. Add brown sugar and boil over low heat for two minutes, stirring constantly. Stir in milk. Bring to boil, stirring constantly. Cool to lukewarm. Gradually add confectioner's sugar. Beat until thick enough to spread. If icing becomes too thick, add a little hot water. Ice cake.
That's the caramel cake icing that was going around eastern N.C. in the '50s when I was growing up, and I have no idea why it's gone out of favor. It's really good. Give it a try.
-- Libby Hicks
Ocracoke Island, N.C.
SALON | Aug. 5, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| REALITY BITES BY KAREN GRIGSBY BATES

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________SINS OF THE FATHERS BY ROS DAVIDSON (07/29/98)
	First, Salon prints an article on polygamy in Utah so badly researched that it ludicrously claims Mormons are against birth control, caffeine and makeup -- not to mention stating that the Kingston polygamist group is a "sect of the Mormon Church" (equivalent to saying that Lutherans are a "sect of the Catholic Church"). Then, Salon prints a tiny retraction on its letters page, and fixes a few of the more grievous errors in the article, with no mention of the modifications on the article page itself. It was only two weeks ago that Salon itself decried such timid online retractions (in "Let's Get This Straight: How do you retract a story online?"). C'mon, guys, do the right thing. Leave the errors in there, tagged with corrective information, and a header at the top of the article explaining your gaffes. If Time can do it, why can't you? -- Sean Luke College Park, Md. Editor's note: Sean Luke brings up a good point. We have struggled at Salon to formulate a correction policy that is honest and open without being overly complicated or fussy. In response to this letter we have amended the policy again: From now on, when an error is serious enough to warrant a correction notice, Salon will run that notice on the Letters to the Editor page. In addition, a note will appear on the corrected story indicating that an earlier version contained an error or errors, with a link to the correction notice.
_______________LUGGING THE GUTS INTO THE NEXT ROOM BY BRUCE SHAPIRO (07/30/98)
	Must we have another diatribe on the government covering up the horrors of war? Bruce Shapiro's thesis that the public was disserviced by the government's censorship of what was happening during World War II is disingenuous at best. Would public support for the war effort have been affected? You bet. World War II was, as it has been called many times, the "Last Good War." Like every war, it started over economics, but it became a true battle between good and evil. And it was a war that could not be lost. Sparing the public scenes of eviscerated bodies was the right choice. This was understood. Today's media, with its bloodlust and desire to repulse rather than educate, can't understand restraint. I, for one, would like to sit and watch the news without having to worry about my children seeing something that will give them nightmares. -- Rick Sala The "Army study" reporting that only 15 to 20 percent of GIs actually fired their weapons in battle was prepared by S.L.A. Marshall and has long since been discredited. The real "weakness" in American infantry was not a reluctance to shoot, but the Army's insistence on single-shot or semi-automatic rifles, as opposed to submachine guns. That was what was corrected later. There was certainly reluctance to kill -- the Germans had no trouble finding volunteers for firing squads; Americans had to be ordered to participate (and the American Army executed a tiny fraction of the number of German soldiers executed by their "comrades") -- but the lack of firing, to the extent there was any, was more often the product of not being able to see the enemy in the chaos of modern war than a reluctance to shoot. In the opening sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" it seems to take an agonizingly long time for the Americans to start shooting back, but close observation of the scene shows that even here, looking up at a bluff crawling with the enemy, it's hard to single out anyone to shoot at. Omaha Beach was -- in contrast with the hedgerows just inland, the Huertgen Forest, the Italian ridges or countless Pacific islands -- relatively open for a World War II battlefield. One of the reasons for the silence of the veterans was touched on by Stephen Spielberg when he said the picture should not be seen by small children. I think the veterans of the war felt the same way. Those most interested in their experiences were their own children. My father, who had been wounded on Okinawa, and my RAF pilot uncle who had been shot down and spent two years in a German POW camp, would tell us only the most innocuous stories of their wartime experiences, and not for want of being asked. To some extent, silence became a habit for the veterans, and, of course, after a while we stopped asking. I think their intent was to talk of their experiences when their kids were old enough. That was the case in my family, helped, no doubt, by the fact that I wound up in the Air Force myself. One day, out on a sailboat, my father and uncle suddenly started talking in detail about what had happened to them in action, now more than 25 years before. I suspect many other such conversations began occurring around then, but many veterans had died, others become estranged from their children and much of the educated middle class that had fought World War II avoided Vietnam, so there were fewer direct reasons for sons in their early 20s to ask their fathers once again, after the long interval, what they did in the war. Indeed, there were reasons not to ask. -- Edward Furey Bruce Shapiro made a glaring omission from "Lugging the guts into the next room" when he failed to mention the one major slip in suppression of military news. The Tet Offensive in 1968 was covered in a manner that let most Americans get a glimpse of the real horror that goes with warfare. The reason for that slip in military censorship has never been explained. Perhaps it was because the military success was so great that the news was allowed to flow so freely. After all, this was the big attack that the enemy had taken years to supply -- and they gained nothing for it. The images showing that successful defense were allowed to flow back onto the TV screens at home. Those same images also let people see a small part of what warfare is really like, and the effect was to undermine what support for the war still remained. "Saving Private Ryan" is not the American education into what warfare is like. That happened 30 years ago. The movie simply explodes the myth that Vietnam was somehow different in its effect on those who fought it. Warfare has always been traumatic for anyone in direct contact with massive killing -- the military means to an objective. -- Hal Wadleigh Kudos to Salon and Bruce Shapiro for the lacerating (no pun intended) article on the history of censorship of "The Good War." I have one caveat, though. The remark about the failure of "Life Goes to War" to print pictures of dismembered corpses is lifted directly from Paul Fussell's "Wartime" (page 269 in the recent Oxford trade paperback edition). The Steinbeck quote is on page 286. Perhaps Mr. Fussell should have been mentioned: Few American writers in the last 30 years have written about war and its dehumanizing aspects. If it was theft and not an unsurpassed instance of synchronicity, at least you're stealing from the right people. -- Donald Powel
_______________ENGLAND'S DECADENT DELIGHTS BY DOUGLAS CRUICKSHANK (07/29/98)
	Ah yes, there is a reason I still turn to you first thing every morning. It's not Camille Paglia, no explanation needed. And it's sure as hell not Courtney Weaver, whose sole talent seems to be wrestling "hot" topics into tepid trivia. Sometimes the irritation level climbs dangerously high, and I contemplate abandoning you for more salutary pastures. And then along comes something wonderful, such as this phrase: "a morning mist cloaks the sheep meadows, liberally sprinkled with the pea-witted beasts." Salon has its share of pea-wits, but it's still a morning must. -- Kitty Colton
_______________SLICE OF LIFE BY MAURINE SHORES (07/16/98)
	I have noticed that there has been in my experience of growing up in North Carolina two contingents on caramel cake icing. My mother now makes the kind with cream, but when we were growing up she made a kind that was much easier and to me much more like candy. I have recently resurrected her old recipe and enclose it here for you to try. (I'd double it if I were you.) Ingredients 1/2 cup butter (the term is interchangeable with margarine to my mother) 1 cup brown sugar, packed 1/4 cup milk 1 1/2 to 2 cups sifted confectioner's sugar Melt butter in saucepan. Add brown sugar and boil over low heat for two minutes, stirring constantly. Stir in milk. Bring to boil, stirring constantly. Cool to lukewarm. Gradually add confectioner's sugar. Beat until thick enough to spread. If icing becomes too thick, add a little hot water. Ice cake. That's the caramel cake icing that was going around eastern N.C. in the '50s when I was growing up, and I have no idea why it's gone out of favor. It's really good. Give it a try. -- Libby Hicks Ocracoke Island, N.C. SALON \| Aug. 5, 1998