_______________ CHEERIO, "SEINFELD" BY JOYCE MILLMAN (05/04/98)
	Oh boy. Can you say "getting lost in the hype"? Joyce Millman's rhapsodies about "Seinfeld" reveal nothing so much as the fact that she herself has been caught up in the tidal wave of received opinion regarding what constitutes "funny" in today's culture. This is a hip show like "Saturday Night Live" was in the beginning? Come on! To give a more recent example, in its heyday "The Simpsons" had big-time celebrities lining up to offer voice-over appearances. When did "Seinfeld" ever feature Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr? And when did "Seinfeld" ever reveal its political bona fides the way "The Simpsons" did with Bart's now-legendary response to George Bush's campaign comment, "We want an America where our families are more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons!"? (Bart's reply: "Hey man, we're just like the Waltons ... We're waiting for the Depression to end too!") There is no accounting for taste, of course, but whenever I watched "Seinfeld" (an average of 10 episodes a year, and the "classics" that acquaintances and colleagues insisted I just HAD to see) I always got a queasy feeling that I was being coated in slime. I mean, really, no matter how you look at it, was there anything even remotely funny about the death of George's fiancée? I know, I know ... it's supposed to be a joke about George's self-absorption. It was also an astoundingly amoral moment in television history, and at the time I couldn't help thinking, "Gee, Jerry, what next? Holocaust jokes?" "Seinfeld" is not bowing out at the top, it's leaving from somewhere in the middle. The show has never been consistently funny: I can remember far more duds than decent episodes. And as far as ensembles are concerned, Millman has got to be kidding. Anyone remember a little show called "M*A*S*H"? Or how about "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"? Or "All in the Family"? More recently we have "Frasier," which at its best is hysterically funny and scores some excellent points about the self-absorbed. But I must confess some of -- well, actually, MOST -- of my negative opinion vis-à-vis "Seinfeld" is because I can't stand JERRY Seinfeld. His stand-up was always pure white-bread with a little matzo thrown in, and his one truly inspired performance was a skit he did when hosting "SNL" where he played the host of a stand-up comedian game show. In short, he is one of the lesser lights in comedy and his show reflects that. -- Robert Anderson I just finished Joyce Millman's dead-on tribute to the departing "Seinfeld," and once again I'm asking myself: How do your Salon writers consistently outdo, week after week, both Internet-specific AND print magazines? I could go on about your investigative reporting, your individual pieces, your columnists (I've been interested in Camille Paglia's views for a long time, but I don't think I'd ever have SEEN Susie Bright's work if it hadn't been for Salon) -- just let me give you a big thanks, and PLEASE keep it up. I think I've developed an addiction here. -- Stan Scott New York Joyce Millman's excellent article on Seinfeld neglected to mention Larry David's indebtedness to Neil Simon for much of George's obsession with finding parking spaces close to the buildings he was visiting. Anyone who is conversant with Neil Simon's "Chapter Two" will know what I am referring to. As Australian audiences and critics were among the first to embrace "Seinfeld" as the quintessential '90s sitcom, I would like to say on behalf of the millions of Aussie "Seinfeld" fans, "Vale, 'Seinfeld.'" We'll miss you. -- Stella Condylis Well, you did it. You lost my vote. I'm so disappointed in Salon for jumping on the "Seinfeld"-is-the-greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread bandwagon. Quite simply, it is inane with none of the universality claimed for it in today's ass-kissing piece on your front page. If you aren't a white, upper-middle class, Jewish New Yorker, the show has virtually nothing to offer. At the very least, it ought to offer humor, but only the physical comedy of Kramer (in brief instances) translates west of the Hudson River. And comparing it to "All in the Family" (not "Archie Bunker's Place") is nothing short of sacrilege. To think I'm in agreement with Camille Paglia is horrifying, but instead of "cheerio," I say, "good riddance." -- Luke Smith What is the big deal about the departure of "Seinfeld"? So far as I could tell this show "about nothing" was about unattractive people who yelled a lot. This is comedy? This is art? This is worth caring about? Forget it and be grateful. -- Perry Smith
_______________ GINGRICH'S IMPEACHMENT SCENARIO BY JONATHAN BRODER (04/29/98)
	Elizabeth Drew's last book was not credible, and she has since been lost in the Washington media shuffle. What better way to get back on the airwaves than with this drivel regarding House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his close associates talking about impeaching President Clinton and Vice President Gore? Why take up space with this baloney? Clinton's popularity will remain strong as long as the people continue to feel good about the way he's running the country. If so, the Republicans won't dare try to topple him. Moreover, most Americans have such a low regard for Kenneth Starr and his tactics -- and believe he is on a Republican witch hunt -- that his report, no matter how "strong," will carry little weight with the people. And without that the Republicans dare not move against Clinton. Besides, don't think for a minute that the Democrats won't rally around him. Drew's reported premise that they will not is wrong. Who will impeach him? A partisan, right-wing-driven Republican Congress? There won't be one Democrat supporting such action. The Republicans in the 94th Congress solidified the Democrats as never before. Even Will Rogers wouldn't recognize his party ("I don't belong to any party, I'm a Democrat"). Republicans can no longer depend on a fractured Democratic party. Democrats in Congress are unified in support of Mr. Clinton, and they recognize they blundered in 1994 by distancing themselves from him due to the attacks that had been made on him, particularly Whitewater. It won't happen again. -- George Magit Elizabeth Drew neglected a few things in her assessment of House Speaker Gingrich and his recent musings. If Clinton and Gore are impeached, that would be known as a coup d'état -- hardly a new idea, though Gingrich has packaged it that way. Gingrich is also a demagogue who has made a career of bashing government while presiding over his district in Georgia, which is the third-largest recipient of "federal monies" (that means the government) in the country. After going on yet another book tour and passing himself off as contrite, warm and fuzzy in order to sell books, he is back to his ol' visionary doublespeak. Enough of this self-styled "strategist" and the coterie who flatter him. Regarding Jonathan Broder's interview of Drew: I find her statements a little disingenuous. The idea that the Starr report will contain anything that might justify impeaching President Clinton is hard to believe -- if Starr had anything solid to go on, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. No, it seems more likely that the speaker of the House and his faction realize that Starr has failed in his attempt to find the magic bullet needed to bring down the president, but rather than let Starr's investigation end with an underwhelming puff, Gingrich and Co. are thumping their chests and making dire and grim pronouncements. And, of course, the Washington press corps is ready and eager to pass along any and all dire and grim pronouncements, so long as they come from those near the top of the heap. Drew's claim that she is merely passing along something said to her is very disturbing. Does she really believe that is her job as a journalist? I suppose it's too late, but perhaps her parents might consider suing whatever college Drew graduated from for having given her a less than adequate education. -- George Mendez G. Crownsville, Md.
_______________ AMERICAN SPECTATOR AUDIT: IS THE FOX GUARDING THE HENHOUSE? BY JONATHAN BRODER (04/27/98)
	What Theodore Olson is doing at the American Spectator should not be confused with the kind of audit bank regulators and the IRS conduct -- i.e., an independent examination by an outside authority designed to discover (or preferably to rule out) any wrongdoing. The Spectator may have called Olson's undertaking an "audit" in order to give us the impression that he is somehow acting in the public interest, but don't look for any impartial reports from him. Olson is doing what every good defense lawyer does when his client gets into a potentially explosive situation: He is finding out exactly what has happened, for better or for worse, so that when the time comes he will know how best to defend his clients. As a lawyer, I've routinely done the same thing for my own clients. Olson presumably is an honorable man and will not improperly conceal incriminating evidence; but it is no accident that the results of his "audit" -- including any findings of criminal wrongdoing in the past -- will be protected from public disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. The difference in this case is that Olson's clients are accused of trying to bring down the Clinton administration, not by winning in a free and fair election, but by using cooked-up scandal, bought testimony and plain libel to bring about the president's impeachment or resignation. Such an exploit would be a virtual coup d'état, unheard of in the United States, at least in this century. This case, therefore, unlike the usual civil or criminal case, is of direct, personal interest to every American. There is no reason to suspect anything nefarious or improper in Olson's actions -- quite the opposite. But Theodore Olson's job is to protect his clients. We must not mistake him for somebody who is going to get to the bottom of these allegations and give us the facts. We have to count on Jonathan Broder and Salon for that. -- Jim Crutchfield Norfolk, Va. Jonathan Broder did a wonderful job of depicting Theodore Olson as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and a likely member of the vast right-wing conspiracy that is helping Starr get the Clintons. But Broder's article cleverly avoided discussing an event that makes the picture considerably more complex. Broder mentions that "Olson became embittered by what he regarded as a politically driven independent counsel's investigation." He ignores the rest of the story: Olson was a party in Morrison vs. Olson, in which he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that the independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. He lost the case, of course, and the Supreme Court upheld the statute, despite a powerful argument by Justice Scalia (whose dissent in the case has become required reading for today's Starr bashers). Olson's defeat paved the way for all sorts of independent counsel antics, like Starr's investigation into the Clintons. The full story of Olson's involvement in Morrison vs. Olson is clearly relevant to the current ruckus over the independent counsel. Consequently, Broder's failure to mention the case was odd, if not irresponsible. --Matthew Estabrook Fairfax, Va. SALON | May 7, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| OKLAHOMANS TO TOM TOMORROW: YOUR PORN IS AS HIGH AS AN ELEPHANT'S EYE! BY DAWN MacKEEN (05/01/98)

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.