Letters to the Editor: 11.28.96
Betrayed Country
East Hampton
November 21, 1996
To The Editor,
No one ever doubted that, as your obituary notes, Alger Hiss was charming and showed "restraint in dealing with the accusations" that he betrayed his country. He was not accused of having a nasty demeanor, simply of turning over State Department documents to the Communist underground in Washington.
While you get around, in the third column, to saying he was convicted and went to jail, your initial identification of him is as "the diplomat accused of being a spy and the defendant in two notorious trials that heightened the public's fear of Communist infiltration into government."
He, not the trials, was notorious; and, disagreeable as it may be to you, several Communist turncoats - not just Whittaker Chambers - identified real government employees who really did spy for the Soviet Union. (Some fled to Russia; some jumped out of windows; some admitted the truth; and some, like Hiss, went on stonewalling.)
Anyone who reads the testimony of the two trials and the Congressional hearings must conclude that Hiss's denials were lies - even though the chief accusers, Chambers and Richard Nixon, were much less fun than Hiss.
In the perspective of 50 years, and with Communism disgraced, it's hard to cast the kindly old Hiss as a villain. Chambers himself never did. But for the sake of history and those young people who now and then consult it, you owe a little more fealty to the truth: Hiss was a disciplined, productive spy who gave secret documents to the Soviets and used his influence to advance their foreign-policy aims.
He spied not for money but because he believed the community revolution might save the war-ravaged and depression-ravaged world of the 1930s. He was, in that sense, idealistic; so were the Weathermen of the '60s and so are the militias of the '90s.
SAM SEGAL
We direct the reader's and Mr. Segal's attention to the "Connections" column in this week's Star. Ed.
Ban Local Reviews
East Hampton
November 22, 1996
To The Editor:
The two whining letters about Sheridan Sansegundo's review of Bobby Van's restaurant ignore some elementary truths.
A restaurant, like any business, can be judged only on its worth to paying customers. Current and potential patrons and the rest of the community have no moral obligation to keep afloat any enterprise that fails to render value for money. Hack it or pack it is the name of the game.
Then, while personal opinions can differ on the quality of just about anything, it makes no sense to institutionalize "criticism" of a small community's activities in its own media. If I owned one of the local papers I'd ban all locally written "reviews" of local commercial and cultural events.
Why? Aside from the reviewer's credentials (which can range from expert to abysmal), how honestly objective can we expect him or her to be? Can you imagine a frank thumbs-down verdict on one of the clinkers produced on our local stages from time to time? Hardly more conceivable than panning the kids' performance in the high school play.
Can the work of local artists and authors and musicians be fairly judged by even the most knowledgeable neighbors they're apt to encounter at the post office and in the homes of mutual friends? Of course not. Dispassionate, dependable criticism is best rendered by strangers - the more distant the better.
Most untrustworthy of all are local "reviews" of restaurants, given that their advertising is so vital to the economic health of the local weeklies. Normally I pay no attention to these cozy editorial puff pieces. I prefer to rely on The New York Times or Granny Poo for a disinterested customer's critical opinion - with which, of course, I may disagree after trying the restaurant myself.
Yet I did notice Ms. Sansegundo's piece on Bobby Van's as a refreshing novelty. (I had lunch there a summer or two ago and remember nothing beyond a cacophonous New York crowd.) But even her oh-so-gentle slap on the wrist, more in sorrow than in anger, managed to hit the fan. So why doesn't The Star just forgo these writeups entirely - even the rare forays into fainter praise? Instead, why not invite your restaurant advertisers to write their own "reviews" for publication at a special reduced space rate?
Sincerely,
SUSAN M. SEIDMAN
On-Line Edition
November 22, 1996
To The Editor:
I like reading your on-line edition.
Did you know that your Lynx version is stuck on your Oct. 31 issue (while the graphic version works fine).
ROGER ROWLETT
We did know Lynx was stuck that week. It is fine now. Ed.
Joys Of Computer
East Hampton
November 25, 1996
Dear Helen:
The less than enthusiastic and superficial "Guestwords" piece by Doug Garr on the alleged perils of on-line banking is dramatically contrary to our experience with bill paying via our computer - and may be the result of Mr. Garr's inadvertent bad choices or lack of information.
His article is a disservice to anyone considering the use of their computer to simplify their financial life.
His downbeat report simply ignores the options that work.
And when the writer admits that "when it comes to balancing a checkbook, plus or minus $100 is close enough for me," his credibility as an arbiter of managing money on or off-line becomes a bit dubious.
One of the joys of having a computer is that it provides immediate access to sophisticated advice and knowledgeable opinions.
Before considering the use of on-line, my wife and I asked questions in a variety of easily available forums on Compuserve (an on-line information service) and in various news groups in the Internet. We were not about to trust our checking account to the caprice of cyberspace without doing the research.
It took only a few days to find that the options for on-line banking were obvious and not very complicated.
Some banks offered account access and bill paying capability. But not our local Bank of New York. And many banks did not provide software for a Macintosh (our computer of choice) So much for the banks.
Intuit, the publisher of Quicken, which we use and wholeheartedly recommend, has a billpaying service (as described by Mr. Garr). In all of our on-line explorations (including Intuit's own forum on Compuserve) the problems with this fairly new service were immediately obvious. Mr. Garr lumps Intuit with the banks. Wrong.
We found that the bill-paying service most often recommended was CheckFree (inexplicably not even mentioned by Mr. Garr). It is not affiliated with any bank. It can handle electronic payments to anyone and for anyone with a checking account at any bank. We have been using it for over a year with literally no problems. We send approximately 20 checks a month. The charge for the service is $5.95 per not (not the $9.95 to $15 per month quoted by Mr. Garr.)
We don't use CheckFee to save money (but we do indeed save in check charges, stamps, and stationery). We use it to save time. With a few key strokes on our computer we send those payments in a very few minutes - as compared to having to write the check, address and stamp the envelopes, etc.
The cliche of breaches in electronic security alluded to by Mr. Garr is old-fashioned nonsense. Doing business via computer is no riskier than giving your credit card to a waiter or the card number to a catalogue retailer on the phone.
It is difficult to understand why Mr. Garr did not explore the positive aspects of on-line banking as carefully as he did the problems.
Cordially,
ROBERT WARNER
Please address correspondence to [email protected]