Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ DO COMPUTERS BOOST PRODUCTIVITY? BY ANDREW LEONARD (04/24/98)

I enjoyed your interview in Salon with Jeff Madrick. I completely agree with Madrick and am grateful for your article.
I teach high school math on the left coast and am always looking for new perspectives to motivate my students. As everyone knows, the most common complaint of any math student is that the math they are learning is irrelevant. The complaint is wearisome, though too often it's a valid point! To counter, I find myself saying all kinds of weird things -- ranging from, "You may be right," to, "Trust me" and a lot of other placating homilies. But I've always believed education isn't about what you WILL use; it's about what you COULD use, but only if you grab onto the brass ring and are creative enough to figure out what to do with it once you're hanging on! Occasionally, I try to discuss this with kids who seem receptive, if I have the time. Yet, the discussion is often flat.
Your article on the other hand fleshes out my brass ring analogy. As a new teacher at this school, I have the "privilege" of teaching low-level classes. Many of my students are dangerously close to dropping out of school for various reasons, but at the same time many are enamored with technology. They love the Internet and are always eager to get into the computer lab. My lowest achieving students regularly beg for lab passes, so they can surf during study hall. And I agree with them. It's a fascinating place, even if you're just poking around with random searches or "wasting" your time in a chat room.
So what's my point? Your article gives me something new to talk about when kids start asking that age-old question. The future belongs to the creative. Most people can live the rest of their lives and never do an algebra problem, or use a computer. But those who can and do have more tools to create with, especially in this age of high technology. The Internet would not and could not exist without it. And to the creative go the spoils. (I'm thinking Bill Gates here, among others.) Having a wrench in your tool box doesn't mean you're going to use it every time you have a job to do. But having it means you are capable of much more than those who don't have one. The question is: Will you choose to put a wrench in your box or are you going to "make do" for the rest of your life? The right tool can make all the difference.
I see many parallels between math and technology. Why would computers make us any more productive? As with math, it's all in how you use them. I can "rehearse" with a kid over and over how to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions, but it doesn't mean a thing unless the kid can figure out when and why to do these things: It doesn't mean anything because it's a tool they can't use. Without that depth to spark creativity, math ends up as worthless junk in their creative "toolbox." It's the "worthless junk" aspect they are always rebelling against. And I don't blame them. With computers, the reality is similar. They are tools and will only be useful if we tell them to do something useful. And that takes a creative being. That is, a person who can assess what needs to be done and effectively use the available tools (software, hardware and "mental"-ware) to imagine and create new solutions, products, information and services. And THAT is where the New (and Burgeoning) Economy lies!
Thanks again for a great article. You can be sure I will be sharing it with others, along with my accidental discovery of one very cool magazine. Keep writing the good stuff and I'll keep reading it.
-- K. Rothi
_______________ SALON'S COVERAGE OF THE CLINTON CRISES (01/21/98 - 04/27/98)

Much has been said about the alleged invocation of presidential privilege by Mr. Clinton. Pundits and TV talking heads assure us that it is ridiculous to claim immunity for personal matters. They point out that Presidents Reagan and Bush did not exercise it while Clinton uses it to stonewall. The argument is at best academic, and in practical terms, illogical.
We are told that any discussion of personal matters between the president and his advisors is outside the purview of privilege. This will be true if the president discusses private matters at a specified time each day, say between 10 p.m. and 10:20. Unfortunately, that does not happen.
Suppose the name Monica Lewinsky crops up in the middle of a discussion on a foreign policy issue. While preparing the State of the Union message, suppose somebody asks whether they should include a few words about the Lewinsky scandal. Suppose in the middle of a discussion on bombing Baghdad, the president says that people will misinterpret the motive if he bombs at a time when the Lewinsky scandal hangs over him. Suppose they talk about scheduling a new initiative at a time when the Paula Jones case may come up before the courts. Surely, on such occasions you cannot separate what is public from private. It is dangerous to put restrictions on such discussions. Already the presidential aides and advisors are afraid to talk to the president in private lest they be dragged before the Grand Jury.
The White House is accused of delaying, foot-dragging or obstructing justice. In a country overpopulated with lawyers, it is a disingenuous argument. Anyone who has had dealings with any lawyer would know that a lawyer's first job is to delay, raise all kinds of court motions, provide only the minimum of documents and to keep the client's mouth shut. Even Republican attorneys agree that if the president were their client, they would advise him not to say anything. Still, we hear the clamor "to come clean." When thousands of pages of documents are involved, does anyone think that a lawyer would hand over documents without reviewing each word and punctuation carefully for several days? It is very easy to say that all that is required is to spend a few minutes and tell the truth, when even the slightest slip or a single misuse of one word can land you a perjury charge, especially when the environment is hostile.
It is a pity that the president's detractors are bent on bringing down the presidency, all for what? To prove that someone had consensual sex and lied about it. We should be ashamed of ourselves. In the history of American federal jurisprudence not a single person has been prosecuted for perjury in a civil case. Now that the Paula Jones case is thrown out, the relevance vanishes even further. If litigation goes forward, all it would mean is that the president is below the law. Is that what we want? If I remember correctly, our Constitution says that everyone, including the president is equal under the law!
-- Ramakrishnaiyer Raman
_______________ REVIEW OF "FOR YOUR OWN GOOD" BY PETER KURTH (04/16/98)

Here's a wild suggestion: Find a reviewer who does more than just swallow whole-hog whatever a book author feels like saying, no matter what the entire body of peer-reviewed medical literature says. An intelligent reviewer would have done just a little investigation, and the review could have been an enlightening look at the modern state of PR, and at how certain assertions can be so very, very carefully phrased and framed.
This is the story of the future -- the development of increasingly sophisticated mass persuasion techniques -- techniques that make Goebbels' look like a child's blunt attempts -- but your surface reviewer was too busy chowing down.
-- Gene Borio
SALON | May 4, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| BETRAYED! BY EVAN MARX (04/28/98)

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.

_______________ DO COMPUTERS BOOST PRODUCTIVITY? BY ANDREW LEONARD (04/24/98)
	I enjoyed your interview in Salon with Jeff Madrick. I completely agree with Madrick and am grateful for your article. I teach high school math on the left coast and am always looking for new perspectives to motivate my students. As everyone knows, the most common complaint of any math student is that the math they are learning is irrelevant. The complaint is wearisome, though too often it's a valid point! To counter, I find myself saying all kinds of weird things -- ranging from, "You may be right," to, "Trust me" and a lot of other placating homilies. But I've always believed education isn't about what you WILL use; it's about what you COULD use, but only if you grab onto the brass ring and are creative enough to figure out what to do with it once you're hanging on! Occasionally, I try to discuss this with kids who seem receptive, if I have the time. Yet, the discussion is often flat. Your article on the other hand fleshes out my brass ring analogy. As a new teacher at this school, I have the "privilege" of teaching low-level classes. Many of my students are dangerously close to dropping out of school for various reasons, but at the same time many are enamored with technology. They love the Internet and are always eager to get into the computer lab. My lowest achieving students regularly beg for lab passes, so they can surf during study hall. And I agree with them. It's a fascinating place, even if you're just poking around with random searches or "wasting" your time in a chat room. So what's my point? Your article gives me something new to talk about when kids start asking that age-old question. The future belongs to the creative. Most people can live the rest of their lives and never do an algebra problem, or use a computer. But those who can and do have more tools to create with, especially in this age of high technology. The Internet would not and could not exist without it. And to the creative go the spoils. (I'm thinking Bill Gates here, among others.) Having a wrench in your tool box doesn't mean you're going to use it every time you have a job to do. But having it means you are capable of much more than those who don't have one. The question is: Will you choose to put a wrench in your box or are you going to "make do" for the rest of your life? The right tool can make all the difference. I see many parallels between math and technology. Why would computers make us any more productive? As with math, it's all in how you use them. I can "rehearse" with a kid over and over how to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions, but it doesn't mean a thing unless the kid can figure out when and why to do these things: It doesn't mean anything because it's a tool they can't use. Without that depth to spark creativity, math ends up as worthless junk in their creative "toolbox." It's the "worthless junk" aspect they are always rebelling against. And I don't blame them. With computers, the reality is similar. They are tools and will only be useful if we tell them to do something useful. And that takes a creative being. That is, a person who can assess what needs to be done and effectively use the available tools (software, hardware and "mental"-ware) to imagine and create new solutions, products, information and services. And THAT is where the New (and Burgeoning) Economy lies! Thanks again for a great article. You can be sure I will be sharing it with others, along with my accidental discovery of one very cool magazine. Keep writing the good stuff and I'll keep reading it. -- K. Rothi
_______________ SALON'S COVERAGE OF THE CLINTON CRISES (01/21/98 - 04/27/98)
	Much has been said about the alleged invocation of presidential privilege by Mr. Clinton. Pundits and TV talking heads assure us that it is ridiculous to claim immunity for personal matters. They point out that Presidents Reagan and Bush did not exercise it while Clinton uses it to stonewall. The argument is at best academic, and in practical terms, illogical. We are told that any discussion of personal matters between the president and his advisors is outside the purview of privilege. This will be true if the president discusses private matters at a specified time each day, say between 10 p.m. and 10:20. Unfortunately, that does not happen. Suppose the name Monica Lewinsky crops up in the middle of a discussion on a foreign policy issue. While preparing the State of the Union message, suppose somebody asks whether they should include a few words about the Lewinsky scandal. Suppose in the middle of a discussion on bombing Baghdad, the president says that people will misinterpret the motive if he bombs at a time when the Lewinsky scandal hangs over him. Suppose they talk about scheduling a new initiative at a time when the Paula Jones case may come up before the courts. Surely, on such occasions you cannot separate what is public from private. It is dangerous to put restrictions on such discussions. Already the presidential aides and advisors are afraid to talk to the president in private lest they be dragged before the Grand Jury. The White House is accused of delaying, foot-dragging or obstructing justice. In a country overpopulated with lawyers, it is a disingenuous argument. Anyone who has had dealings with any lawyer would know that a lawyer's first job is to delay, raise all kinds of court motions, provide only the minimum of documents and to keep the client's mouth shut. Even Republican attorneys agree that if the president were their client, they would advise him not to say anything. Still, we hear the clamor "to come clean." When thousands of pages of documents are involved, does anyone think that a lawyer would hand over documents without reviewing each word and punctuation carefully for several days? It is very easy to say that all that is required is to spend a few minutes and tell the truth, when even the slightest slip or a single misuse of one word can land you a perjury charge, especially when the environment is hostile. It is a pity that the president's detractors are bent on bringing down the presidency, all for what? To prove that someone had consensual sex and lied about it. We should be ashamed of ourselves. In the history of American federal jurisprudence not a single person has been prosecuted for perjury in a civil case. Now that the Paula Jones case is thrown out, the relevance vanishes even further. If litigation goes forward, all it would mean is that the president is below the law. Is that what we want? If I remember correctly, our Constitution says that everyone, including the president is equal under the law! -- Ramakrishnaiyer Raman
_______________ REVIEW OF "FOR YOUR OWN GOOD" BY PETER KURTH (04/16/98)
	Here's a wild suggestion: Find a reviewer who does more than just swallow whole-hog whatever a book author feels like saying, no matter what the entire body of peer-reviewed medical literature says. An intelligent reviewer would have done just a little investigation, and the review could have been an enlightening look at the modern state of PR, and at how certain assertions can be so very, very carefully phrased and framed. This is the story of the future -- the development of increasingly sophisticated mass persuasion techniques -- techniques that make Goebbels' look like a child's blunt attempts -- but your surface reviewer was too busy chowing down. -- Gene Borio SALON \| May 4, 1998