Reaching Into Hearts, Not Minds
To the Editors:
Political experts seem baffled by Jimmy Carter’s phenomenal success in the primaries [May 10]. I think the answer is quite simple. The other candidates are trying to reach into the minds of men; Carter reaches into their hearts.
Jean Maggio New York City
Are we to believe that from little peanuts great oaks will grow?
Margaret A. O’Brien New York City
Intriguing, isn’t it, how far we’ve come in 200 years? You say, “Some critics suggest that if he were elected, Carter’s religious life might intrude on his acts as President.” Two hundred years ago voters would have assumed that a leader’s religious life would intrude on his acts, and in fact would have been terribly disturbed if it didn’t.
Frankly, other things you point out about Carter such as his almost total humorlessness, his iron will and his rigidity are the terrifying elements in his character. I prefer religion any day.
Nancy Cammack Ruxton, Md.
From your cover it was almost impossible to determine whether Jimmy Carter was smiling, sniggering or sneering at the American public. He and Mona Lisa would make a dandy pair of presidential running mates.
Michelle Williams Woodside, N. Y.
The fact that Carter has triumphed against the political pros and organizations by his intelligent, positive and honest campaigning should give one a renewed sense of confidence in the ability of the American voter to render an intelligent personal decision based on his interpretation of the candidate’s platform and past performance.
The shouts of outraged bureaucrats, the laments of political insiders, and the uncertainties of opponents of Carter’s candidacy sound like music to me.
Jim McKinnis Seattle
The more this presidential race drags on, the more I long to go into a voting booth and be able to pull a lever labeled “none of the above.”
Robert M. Juelich Athens, Ohio
C’mon, Good Buddy
Living in the midst of “The Bodacious New World of CB” [May 10], I can no longer enjoy uninterrupted entertainment from my radio or televison. For instance, the beginning of my favorite late-night TV show more often than not sounds like this: “Mary Hartman, c’mon, good buddy!” Simultaneously, the picture reception becomes more scrambled and disoriented than Mary Hartman herself. What makes you think that “TV is, after all, a nonparticipant pastime”?
Diane Schear Denver
True, CBs may some day be required equipment on all cars, but when my car is sold, its history will read “Driven by a little old lady CB never turned on.”
Velma A. Corel Lawrence, Kans.
You laud the hundreds of thousands of CBers who have polluted the air waves with their gibberish, but you mention only in passing that the FCC is having problems with these people. What you fail to say is that the band was designed to be used by the increasing number of businesses that want to be able to communicate with their people in the field. If people want to get on the air just to “chew the rag,” they could become radio amateurs (hams). That would give them not just one band but many more.
Donald L. Rastede Lewisburg, Pa.
At last you have shown that people who use radios for communication are quite normal. You will also learn that there is a group known as Amateur Radio Operators, who can, in addition to talking on the radio, talk through orbital satellite, run teletype machines, talk around the world, send disaster messages from Guatemala, even operate their own TV stations, all from their home, car, boat or airplane.
James R. Hain Lockport, N. Y.
Three-Legged Stoolie
Ms. McLellan’s duties as a snitch for the Washington Star [May 10] certainly must keep her on the run, since she seems to have developed a third leg.
Frank Lemon Fairfield, Calif.
While you mention that Ms. Lague is 5 ft. 8 in., I think it is only fair to add that Ms. McLellan is 3 legged, 2 feet.
Gail Eberhart Newberg, Ore.
Beastly or Manly?
Having lived and studied among the Yãnomamö Indians of South America, I feel most concerned about your article, which appeared under the disturbing title “Beastly or Manly?” [May 10].
The Yãnomamö happen to have been studied at a time when their patterns of warfare and raiding were still intact. It also seems to be the case that outsiders came to know them during an unusually tumultuous period. As a result, disproportionate attention has been focused on the role of aggression and violence in Yãnomamö society.
Now, in the light of pop ethology and sociobiology, the Yãnomamö are seen not only as “wild Indians” but as one short step away from a baboon troop. The familiar tendency to look upon other groups of people as being less fully human than ourselves here masquerades as science.
I would like to make it clear that the Yãnomamö are not the missing link.
Judith Shapiro
Department of Anthropology
Bryn Mawr College, Pa.
As a missionary at one time near the geographical center of the Yãnomamö Indians, and knowing them as friends, I am aware of contradictions to Dr. Chagnon’s conclusions. Here, simplified for brevity, are just a few: 1) hearing of female infanticide surprised the Yanomamo people; 2) wars seldom begin by wife stealing; 3) families of warlike men are not necessarily larger than those of less warlike men.
It is opportunistic of evolutionists to accept some facts and reject others because they might imply a specific creation.
Paul Shadle Bridgewater, N.J.
Last Laugh
In a recent article on who Deep Throat might be [May 3], you said that I was a possibility. The idea is so bizarre that I must laugh. First, I would not have been a source for Woodward and Bernstein if I could have been. Second, I was not privy to any secret information about Watergate of any kind. Third, at the time the supposed Deep Throat was operating out of Washington garages, I was living in Santa Cruz, Calif.
I think that if I, an editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal, had been as careless as your writer, I would have caught hell.
Benjamin J. Stein
The Wall Street Journal
New York City
Knight Demarest
Your cover story on “Modern Royalty” [May 3] is without question the most beautiful—indeed, magical—piece of writing in a long time. Michael Demarest should be knighted.
Emmet Davis New York City
Unity v. Truth
Your story on Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible [May 10] implies that unity is of greater importance than truth. Yet Evangelicals at the recent World Council of Churches Assembly in Nairobi did not hesitate to challenge this thesis. Nor did those earlier Evangelicals, the Protestant reformers.
Lindsell has illustrated his point with specific historical instances. Do his critics have contradictory evidence? If so, let them cite this rather than reproach or ridicule, and furnish the evangelical public with thoughtful options rather than defensive reactions.
Hudson T. Armerding, President
World Evangelical Fellowship
Wheaton, Ill.
ncG1vNJzZmismaKyb6%2FOpmaaqpOdtrexjm9vcWhnaYNwss6rrKZlnZbGbn%2BQZmhyb2Zk