Hi Wendy,
I’m having to retransmit this because, after all my smugness about my supposed superiority in electronic media, I misspelled “Microsoft” and thus my first message never arrived in Slate headquarters, although I hope you received it, since I did spell WenWass, etc. correctly. Slate, are you out there? Can you hear us? We’re like Beckett clowns, trying to keep each other amused with bright chatter as we wander aimlessly through the existential cyber-fog …
I’ll first recap my previous comments: Did you note that the front page of today’s New York Times is dominated by tomorrow’s elections, and yesterday’s New York Marathon? I’d much rather think about the marathon … look, for instance, at the wonderful color photo of the victorious (and not unattractive) Franca Fiacconi of Italy, waving her arms in the air and grinning ecstatically in one shot, kissing the pavement in another. These pix, to my mind, are worth any number of images of the crass combatants D’Amato and Schumer smirking and making V-for-victory signs, as one of them is bound to be doing two days from now (don’t get me wrong: crass-but-pro-choice beats crass-and-also-Neanderthal in my book).
Did you happen to notice that both Ms. Fiacconi and the male marathon winner, John Kagwe of Kenya, are both wearing glasses in their respective victory poses? What’s more, examine the giant half-page color photo (page one of the special “Marathon” F section) of which shows a bespectacled Kagwe outpacing rival marathoner Joseph Chebet–who isn’t wearing specs. Coincidence, you say? Maybe–but now look at the top of page F7, where Kagwe is again depicted, this time with four soon-to-be-defeated opponents behind him, none of whom is sporting corrective lenses. It’s got to mean something, i.e., people who wear glasses are stronger and more aggressive than people who don’t? Counter-intuitive, but possible. Or: perhaps the air of New York is so permeated with invisible motes of bus exhaust as to impair the vision, and hence the performance, of the naked-eyed runners? Since both of us wear glasses, and occasionally run around the Central Park reservoir, I welcome your thoughts on this trend.
I was also intrigued by the three (!) separate items on the editorial and op-ed pages, relating to the DNA evidence that supposedly confirms Thomas Jefferson’s sexual liaison with his mulatto slave Sally Hemings. How does this affect our views of Jefferson (assuming that we have any)? Orlando Patterson, distinguished Harvard sociology professor who happens also to be black, says that he now feels “less alienated” from Jefferson, on the grounds that Jefferson’s relationship with Ms. Hemings was “no one-night stand, and that even though he owned slaves and was known to have expressed racist views on occasion, the fact that he carried on a decades-long sexual relationship with a black woman means that he was de facto sympathetic to blacks.
Whereas Brent Staples (occupation and ethnicity unknown to me) on the opposite page asserts sniffily that “nothing done in bed would atone for the fiercely bigoted views of black people put forth in [Jefferson’s] ‘Notes on the State of Virginia.’ The most committed racists reveled in illicit sex in the slave quarters.” And when William Safire’s column poses the question, “Was [Jefferson] hypocritical to espouse the Rights of Man while embracing slavery?” I am forced to put the more serious issues aside and ask, “Bill, was that a conscious double-entendre?”
Wendy, I anxiously await your response.
xxxooo,
Stephen
