Anti-Semitism, Left & Right

To the Editor:

How Norman Podhoretz was able to pull all the pieces together from their original sources (I read them all when they originally appeared) is nothing short of a minor literary miracle. His latest article is up there, on the same level with “J’Accuse.” Bravo! . . .

In the 120th-anniversary issue of the Nation (containing Vidal’s article), there are a number of congratulatory messages. One is from Senator Bill Bradley. Is it not strange that this Senator from New Jersey did not respond to Norman Podhoretz? . . . And what of the full-page General Motors advertisement in that issue, saying “What’s good for theNation is good for the country, and vice versa”? If I’m not mistaken, GM has continued to advertise in the Nation since the anti-Semitism of Vidal and Navasky has been exposed. . . .

Irving Gavrin
Morristown, New Jersey

_____________

To the Editor:

“The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name” recounts one of the most shameful and bizarre episodes of public anti-Semitism in recent years. But Norman Podhoretz’s penultimate conclusion—that the American Right is less anti-Semitic than the American Left—seems to me an unsatisfying overgeneralization. Neither side in the political debate has cornered the market on virtue when it comes to religious tolerance, although I applaud the actions of William F. Buckley, Jr. and others on the Right in distancing themselves from the likes of Joseph Sobran.

Nevertheless, the undeniable virtue of Mr. Podhoretz’s article lies in exposing the moral myopia of so many intelligent people who simply should know how to recognize and condemn vicious anti-Semitism. I first became aware of Gore Vidal’s article when I read Norman Podhoretz’s column about it in the Washington Post. I was shocked and offended when the Post actually ran Vidal’s article in the newspaper. Such hatred deserves no place in any respectable publication, as the editors of the Nation clearly should have realized when they first saw the piece. I am even more astounded by the comments of Edwin Yoder, Roger Wilkins, and others, who have attempted to defend Vidal’s diatribe and to stifle his critics.

One wonders what would have happened if a relatively well-known man or woman of letters had published an article highly critical of the efforts to end racial separation in South Africa. Suppose the author had gone so far as to argue that America has strong military and political interests in maintaining a friendly relationship with the South African government; that American blacks protesting apartheid were jeopardizing that relationship; and thus that they were engaged not in unwise but in treasonous conduct. Suppose that the author further opined that American blacks were, after all, merely foreigners in this “host” country, and implied that they remained in America only by the good grace of the white majority.

Such comments would most certainly be denounced by both Right and Left as racist. Nonsense such as this is not even close to the boundaries of legitimate debate about our relationship with South Africa, just as Vidal’s idiocy is in no way legitimate COMMENTARY about America’s relationship with Israel. . . .

It is neither subverting the First Amendment nor counseling McCarthyism to condemn such vicious hatred. Neither the Protocols of the Elders of Zion nor Ku Klux Klan propaganda belongs in the Nation or the Washington Post; Vidal’s thinly disguised republication of such views cannot be dismissed as “irony,” as the editor of the Nation, Victor Navasky, attempted to do, and simply does not deserve the support of anyone with a grain of common sense.

The inability of so many intelligent and influential people to realize this is testimony not only to their lack of understanding and indifference, but to a historical naiveté that is truly shocking. Surely Gore Vidal knew that a charge that American Jews were “foreigners” disloyal to their “host” country was an insult of historic significance to Jews: precisely that claim was made for centuries to justify Jewish ghettos and anti-Semitic practices throughout Europe. Yet none of Vidal’s defenders appears to recognize the historic legacy of Vidal’s remarks, which spring not from his fertile (if warped) imagination but from centuries of attempts to find a rationale for persecution. Therein lies the true tragedy of this situation. It is not asking too much to expect those who join in discussions of this matter (and particularly responsible journalists with access to broad channels of communication) to acquire some elemental knowledge of their subject before they mount the soapbox to broadcast their opinions.

I am an American Jew who has never been to Israel and has no plans to emigrate. My ties and allegiances are to this country, none other. Yet reading Norman Podhoretz’s article reminds me that it is very much in my interests to ensure the survival of Israel, and not only because of Israel’s strategic importance to the United States. After all, I may need somewhere to pitch my tent if my gracious hosts in the United States, and their indifferent companions, ever decide to turn me out.

Zachary D. Fasman
Washington, D.C.

_____________

To the Editor:

We are indebted to Norman Podhoretz for his penetrating analysis of Gore Vidal’s anti-Semitism. Vidal may be a second-rate novelist but he is a first-rate anti-Semite.

Mr. Podhoretz makes evident that it is once again open season on the Jews; this time, however, the enemies shoot from the Left and not from the Right. Vidal’s attack must be viewed as part of a revitalized campaign of hate. . . .

Harold B. Aspis
White Plains, New York

_____________

To the Editor:

I read Norman Podhoretz’s article and haven’t been able to get it out of my mind since. My mother-in-law has a saying about people like Vidal, Wilkins, et al.: “They spit in your face and tell you it’s raining.”

I did not read Sobran’s article, but learned of it secondhand in Newsweek, which emphasized the reaction of the Jewish intelligentsia rather than the content of Sobran’s polemic. How much longer do we sit back and record each attack from a Vidal or Sobran? When do we counterattack?

The bottom line is that the world wants to bury Jewish anger. But anger will be our salvation. Vidal’s protectors and “neutrals” like Rod MacLeish have done their best to make Norman Podhoretz seem like a controversial zealot; in reality, he is a straight shooter who stands up for Jewish dignity.

Joe Weber
Atlanta, Georgia

_____________

To the Editor:

At least there is one Jew in this country who is willing to express himself publicly and is not afraid to fight against anti-Semitism—wherever it comes from.

Leo Rettig
Cedarhurst, New York

_____________

To the Editor:

Gore Vidal suggests that for Jews America is a host country and that American Jews are an Israeli fifth column.

On the wall of the Wisconsin Jewish War Veterans office are photographs of local Jewish boys who did not make it back from the wars. On Memorial Day when we decorate the graves of Jewish war veterans we put the lie to Vidal’s literary foolishness. In one cemetery, among the graves of Jewish nineteen-year-olds, are the grave of a Jewish Civil War veteran and a monument to a twenty-six-year-old Jewish major who was lost in the South Pacific in World War II.

When we pledge allegiance to the flag of our country, it is not just a meaningless ritual; it is a sacred oath. Jewish war veterans have proved that.

Vidal’s main claim to superiority over me is that his ancestors immigrated to this country 150 years before mine. This image exists only in his mind, not mine. My complaint is not with his ignorance, however, it is with the cowardly response of so-called Jewish leaders, rabbis, editors, and others who pussyfooted around this insult to American Jews. . . .

Albert E. Cohen
Jewish War Veterans, Department of Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

_____________

To the Editor:

“The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name” is the best essay I have read by Norman Podhoretz in a long time. Yet there are a few points worth adding. First, throughout his article, Vidal called the U.S. “his” country, but, according to his byline, he was living in Italy at the time he wrote his diatribe. Is his first loyalty really to this country? Mr. Podhoretz, on the other hand, has always written from New York. . . . Is his first loyalty really Israel?

Another irony lies in Vidal’s epithet, “fifth columnists.” In fact, two of the most prominent “fifth columnists” by his definition—Norman Podhoretz and William Safire—wrote the harshest indictments of Jonathan Jay Pollard that appeared on any op-ed page. . . .

As the Left and its ideologues become more comfortable in their anti-Semitism, the Jews of this country will find themselves increasingly isolated. The Left must realize that its extreme and the extreme of the Right have a lot in common, and take steps to make anti-Semitism unacceptable in its ranks. In fact, the American Left could take a lesson in this from the way William F. Buckley, Jr. and Norman Podhoretz have dealt with Joseph Sobran.

David Gerstman
Baltimore, Maryland

_____________

To the Editor:

Characteristically, Norman Podhoretz’s analysis precisely defines the hypocrisy of the liberal Left in its obnoxious . . . refusal to call a viper a viper. . . . Why is the Left so selective in its visitation of moral thunderbolts upon blatant violations of principles? . . .

At one time, sadly, benighted segments of the Roman Catholic Church (of which I am a communicant) wrongly, and thus sinfully, were catalysts for anti-Semitism. Today the Left is the Inquisitor, for it cannot tolerate an alternative view of reality—particularly a view rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition which, for all its flaws, has granted us those freedoms which conveniently benefit the Left’s secular curia at the Nation.

James J. Carberry
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana

_____________

To the Editor:

The neurotic refusal of the Jewish Left to recognize Gore Vidal’s anti-Semitism set me to wondering about the psychological basis for playing ostrich in the face of such rank offense. It seemed to me that, beginning with the emancipation of the late 18th century, Jewish life lost its millennial center. The new Jewish secularism thereafter rushed to grasp new centers in a variety of utopias which were found soon enough under one of several Marxist foundations.

In pre-World War II days and thereafter, Stalinism became the icon of the utopians and it was worshipped with a faith and a passion that would make Pat Robertson’s followers green with envy. Our current Jewish utopians have followed the shift of the Marxist center to the Third World . . ., which they worship with at least the same fervor as their antecedents worshipped Stalinism. . . .

Charles Ansell
Sherman Oaks, California

_____________

To the Editor:

Given that Gore Vidal has officially emerged from yet another closet to expose himself as a scurrilous anti-Semite . . ., will we now be subjected to this latest batch of his repugnant ideas through his seemingly ubiquitous presence on America’s lowbrow talk shows? Will Vidal’s so-called wit continue to be mistaken for wisdom, and his subtle “irony” for truth? Will the American public finally perceive the treachery in Vidal’s voice? Will the talk-show hosts finally stop treating him with obsequious admiration? . . .

N.A. Mednick
Toronto, Ontario

_____________

To the Editor:

I enjoyed Norman Podhoretz’s excellent article. Having been on the Left myself for many years, and as a Jew, I recall quite vividly my feeling of moral neutrality when it came to Israel and how easy it was for this feeling to slip over into anti-Jewish prejudice. The fact that Mr. Podhoretz criticizes such disparate people as Vidal and Sobran underlines his evenhanded approach to the problem. . . . Yet today, as Mr. Podhoretz indicates in the conclusion of this article, and as Lucy S. Dawidowicz has also noted [“Politics, the Jews & the ’84 Election,” COMMENTARY, February 1985], the problem of moral neutrality and of anti-Semitism is far more serious on the Left than it is on the Right.

Joseph R. Aziz
Flushing, New York

_____________

To the Editor:

Thank you for the splendid article, “The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name.”

For too many years, Jews have worshipped liberal ideology and have all too easily accepted the indoctrination of the Left that conservatives are the source of anti-Semitism and of anti-Israel attitudes. The media, which are overwhelmingly liberal, have helped in this process by using code-words like “the Far Right” and “ultra-conservative.” Most Jews immediately think of the Far Right as the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi groups, or the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. If they were better informed, they would know that conservatives oppose these groups.

For the past twenty years, I have subscribed to many conservative magazines, so I know firsthand what they are printing. I do not have to rely on the media to think for me. Most Jews would be amazed to learn that during these years, I have never seen any anti-Semitic statements in these publications.

During the Lebanon war, for example, the worst anti-Israel blows came from the ultra-liberal media, which not only include the big TV networks but also those liberal bibles, the Washington Post and the New York Times. . . . The other side of the coin is that the articles that were the most pro-Israel appeared in conservative magazines. . . .

Ted Kaplan
Glencoe, Illinois

_____________

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz is much too kind to William F. Buckley, Jr. for his handling of the Joseph Sobran affair. Buckley deserves some praise for his editorial note, written in response to Midge Decter’s trenchant criticisms of several columns written by Sobran. But at that point, Buckley apparently was unaware of yet another Sobran column, whose racism and anti-Semitism were far more overt.

In that article, Sobran saluted Instauration magazine, an execrable publication that derides the Holocaust as a Zionist myth and tirelessly preaches the superiority of the white race. Instauration, he wrote, “faces the harder facts about race. . . . [It] is an often brilliant magazine, covering a beat no one else will touch, and doing so with intelligence, wide-ranging observation, and bitter wit.” Some mild qualifying remarks did not alter Sobran’s plain message. It is impossible for anyone acquainted with Instauration to read this encomium and conclude that its author is not a thoroughgoing bigot.

Buckley is no longer unaware of that column; I sent him a copy of my own column criticizing it. His response was to send me a copy of his editor’s note, which was irrelevant. Nor, to my knowledge, has he made any public comment. Rather than confront this Sobran column, which is considerably more damning than those Buckley previously disowned, he has chosen to ignore it. . . . Meanwhile, he continues to employ at National Review a writer who has lent aid and comfort to proud advocates of racism and anti-Semitism . . . [which] is neither honest nor admirable.

Stephen Chapman
Chicago Tribune
Chicago, Illinois

_____________

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz’s article sets the record straight. If I have a quibble, maybe even a quarrel, with it, it is the assumption that the responses on the Right to anti-Semitism in its midst are more forthcoming and forthright than leftist responses. True, William F. Buckley, Jr.’s response to Joseph Sobran was superior to Victor Navasky’s tacit endorsement of Vidal—but neither response constitutes the full range or outer limits of rightist or leftist sentiments.

Irving Louis Horowitz
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey

_____________

To the Editor:

Although Norman Podhoretz writes that Joseph Sobran’s political friends reacted “mostly [with] outrage” to his anti-Semitic columns, this has rarely been expressed publicly. While Mary McGrory and Anthony Lewis are regularly (and deservedly) cited by conservative columnists for irrationality, when was the last time these conservatives criticized Sobran, or Rowland Evans, or Patrick Buchanan, who in October wrote a misinformation-laden article defending the professed innocence of accused Nazi Ivan Demjanjuk? With the exception of National Review, where Sobran is still a senior editor, the silence from the Right on this subject has been too loud.

Steven A. Falk
St. Paul, Minnesota

_____________

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz rightly suffers hurt feelings over Gore Vidal’s unconscionable anti-Semitic tirade in the Nation, but he wrongly blames the usual suspects on the Left for apparently not sharing them. . . .

Typically, Mr. Podhoretz turns an embarrassing personal spat into a kind of moral litmus test for American liberalism. Toting up his scorecard, he fumes that only eight of 29 solicitations produced replies either directly to him or to the Nation. Only five saw problems with the piece or its publication; two took offense at Mr. Podhoretz’s approach, while one (how dare he!) . . . praised Vidal’s article. Later, three of the remaining 21 . . . criticized Vidal’s article, but “felt no compelling reason to protest against its publication.” As for the silence of the other 18 (a deep theatrical sigh of regret here), “. . . whatever the reasons might be, one glaring and ugly fact remained: a large number of prominent liberals and leftists who had publicly associated themselves in one way or another with the Nation . . . had not been sufficiently outraged to register disapproval or express a protest.” Poring over the Nation in subsequent weeks, he counts only four letters sufficiently exercised on his behalf.

Comparing Vidal with Joseph Sobran, an archetypal right-wing anti-Semite, hardly bolsters the case. Admitting with heavy heart the inescapable fact of Sobran’s anti-Semitism, the best Mr. Podhoretz can offer is a demurrer—“none of the clearly anti-Semitic Sobran columns had appeared in National Review”—and a disclaimer: editor William F. Buckley, Jr., prompted by Midge Decter, wrote an editorial asserting his colleagues’ belief that “in his heart” Sobran was clean, and dissociating the National Review staff only from Sobran’s recent “obstinate tendentiousness.”

This, we are to believe, represents the Left’s “denial” and stonewalling on charges of anti-Semitism, and the Right’s “mostly outrage, . . . dissociation and repudiation.”

For years, Mr. Podhoretz has seized every opportunity—including this one—righteously to put the torch to his straw-man Left. By what right does he now demand they help him pour on the gasoline and strike a match?

Joel Bellman
Los Angeles, California

_____________

To the Editor:

It is incredible to me that there was such a feeble response to Gore Vidal’s diatribe from the icons of politics and journalism whom Norman Podhoretz contacted. While not in the company of those luminaries, I was among those shocked both by Vidal’s article and his ripostes to his critics. . . .

But what I find disappointing about “The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name” is that Norman Podhoretz fails to confront the broader issues raised by the comments of Vidal, Joseph Sobran, and others. He deals with the old bugaboo of dual loyalty only tangentially and does not discuss the central question of whether the opinions of these writers reflect an undercurrent of anti-Semitism extant in a large segment of the American population. Surprisingly, William F. Buckley, Jr.’s criticism of Sobran is highlighted while his curious statement that his colleagues should in the future respect the “prevailing taboos concerning Israel and the Jews” is not analyzed.

Finally, Mr. Podhoretz leaves untouched the phenomenon of Jewish power on the American scene—its impact and its positive and negative effects upon both Jews and the rest of society. But I hope we will hear more from him on this at some later date.

Bernard Greenspan
Stamford, Connecticut

_____________

To the Editor:

It seems more than a little ironic that in an article devoted to discussing vile bigotry, Norman Podhoretz asserts that the AIDS epidemic confirms the idea that “there is a suicidal impulse at work in homosexual promiscuity.”

I do not know what Mr. Podhoretz has been doing the past few years, but most others seem to be aware that AIDS is a medical disease (not confined to the homosexual comunity, or necessarily the result of promiscuity), not some national emotional instability.

I believe that the nation’s homosexuals have already endured enough prejudice and hurt. Characterizing them as bent on self-destruction is not only incorrect, it is indicative of the same sort of biogtry that Vidal has shown. . . .

David Isenberg
Washington, D.C.

_____________

To the Editor:

The last footnote in Norman Podhoretz’s article justly refers to “the most bizarre—and, from the Jewish point of view, scandalous” treatment of the Vidal article in the Washington Jewish Week.

Having spent years of unpaid labor as well as part of my family savings to establish and build that paper, may I have the privilege of making it known that its present publisher has outraged my sensibilities and those of many people in the Washington community by a fairly consistent subversion of the original purposes of that paper?

After I left Washington, my son, Joseph M. Hochstein, . . . was impelled to settle in Israel and sold the Washington Jewish Week. Had I anticipated the danger that the paper might be subverted, I would have insisted on resuming control.

Philip Hochstein
New York City

_____________

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz’s article is a reflection of a disturbing phenomenon: that seemingly intelligent and educated people would engage in anti-Semitic propaganda after all that has happened in our century: the wanton murder of some six million innocent men, women, and children, a holocaust that would not have been possible had it not been preceded by poisonous anti-Jewish propaganda carried on for centuries. . . .

Anti-Semitism has been called a problem of the Gentiles, not a Jewish problem (Jean-Paul Sartre). In fact, it still exists where there are almost no Jews left—in Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia. . . .

Where do these feelings come from? What is their genesis? May I mention some personal experiences? I grew up in Austria, perhaps the very cradle of modern anti-Semitism, whose population is mostly Roman Catholic. While attending elementary school, I was struck by the fact that several boys who had been my friends, suddenly, after they had received religious instruction, turned on me, accusing me of being a Christ-killer and having persecuted their savior. Of course I did not understand what they meant at that time, but later on when I read the Gospels of the New Testament, it became quite clear to me that young impressionable minds indoctrinated with these Gospel stories cannot conceive of Jews in general as anything but evil enemies of Jesus who persecuted him and are responsible for his suffering and crucifixion. . . .

Young people so indoctrinated, after they have grown up, may no longer recall the origins of their dislike of Jews, but the feelings have settled in their subconscious. In their conscious mind they rationalize their hatred of Jews and give reasons for it that need not be taken at face value. . . .

It seems to me that only if we lay bare the root causes of the disease of anti-Semitism can we hope to eradicate it.

Adolph Lusthaus
Tamarac, Florida

_____________

To the Editor:

I was very impressed by “The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name,” especially because of the analogies it enables one to make between contemporary discussions of anti-Semitism and American Jews and those held on this subject in Europe, notably in Germany, that cradle of anti-Semitism, before and after World War I. In Germany, too, a number of Jews also joined their voices to those of their detractors (but this was the case with the Jews on the Right rather than on the Left).

To judge by the dossier Norman Podhoretz has assembled, anti-Semitism in the U.S. is becoming “an opinion like any other,” in no way deserving of censure, just as it was in Europe, except that the terminology has changed: today anti-Semitism hides under the mask of anti-Zionism, since no one, anywhere, is willing to call himself an anti-Semite. But it could not be otherwise, for Western culture in the 19th century accepted as self-evident the classification of humanity into “superior” and “inferior” races—of which the Aryan-Semite antithesis was one category—while in our own day, thank God, these absurd hierarchies are generally condemned. As a result, contemporary anti-Semitism is closer to that of a more distant past, in the sense that in Christian Europe Jews were attacked for, or under the pretext of, their beliefs and not because of their “biological nature.” A good example of this is the quotation Mr. Podhoretz gives from Joseph Sobran.

Positions of this sort are in evidence in Europe as well, but certainly the air is not as poisoned there as it is in the United States. The current situation in the U.S. brings to mind the Germany of a century ago: there, as in America today, the most flourishing and dynamic Judaism existed at the same time that the Jews themselves were firmly attached to the culture and civic values of their country. I have no explanation for this. But I do have one for the present moment. On this subject 1 recall Mr. Podhoretz’s article, “J’Accuse” and the flood of letters it produced [Letters from Readers, December 1982]. My analysis of it at the time, as set forth in From Moscow to Beirut: An Essay on Disinformation, led to the conclusion that the war in Lebanon created, rather than a recrudescence of anti-Semitism, a weakening of the taboos that had surrounded it since the Hitler era. But here the analogies appear to end, for nothing seems to indicate the approach of a new planetary tragedy in which the Jews would be the designated victims as well as the symbol.

Léon Poliakov
Paris, France

_____________

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz describes a new brand of American anti-Semitism with his usual force and precision. But it should be realized that this is not only an American, but also a European—and particularly a German—problem. Certain aspects and accents may be different, but the phenomenon itself is essentially the same. . . .

Let me cite two examples to illustrate this.

In 1985, a controversy over a clearly anti-Semitic play by the German moviemaker and playwright Rainer Werner Fassbinder . . . degenerated into an acrimonious discussion of the Jews in general and their place in German society. And since last June, a discussion has been taking place among leading historians about the “need” to view National Socialism and the Holocaust in a new light. The historians Ernst Nolte, Andreas Hillgruber, Joachim Fest, and others have argued—in newspaper and magazine articles—that the “Asiatic mass murder” of the Gulag occurred “prior to” and was “more original” than the Nazi Holocaust. Therefore, they contend, the Holocaust should not be classified as a “singular” or “unique” event, but rather as a “reaction” to the menace represented by the Gulag. A statement allegedly made by Chaim Weizmann in 1939 that the Jews were at war with Hitler is used to justify what Nazi Germany was subsequently to do to the Jews of Europe.

These and similar “arguments” are presented in cloudy and imprecise language which avoids a clear justification of National Socialist policy, but cleverly implies that the time has come for a “revision” of history in the “context” of these highly questionable assumptions. It is true that refutations have been attempted by other historians and social scientists (i.e., by Jürgen Habermas), but so far the match has clearly been in favor of the revisionists.

For someone like me, who has had personal experience with European anti-Semitism for almost seventy years, this is deeply disquieting. It is even more so in the light of Norman Podhoretz’s recent experience in the U.S. I hope that COMMENTARY will open a profound discussion of this new “Jewish Question.”

Gerhard Wolfgang Goldberg
University of Würzburg
Würzburg, West Germany

_____________

Norman Podhoretz writes:

Frankly, the reaction to “The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name”—of which the above letters are a small but representative sample—has come as a surprise to me. One reason is that I had not expected so many warm and extraordinarily generous comments. On the contrary: I was bracing myself for many more attacks on the piece than we actually received. Why there should have been so few is hard to say, but in any case it suggests that the resurgence of anti-Semitism is encountering more resistance, even on the Left, than was evident in the reaction to Gore Vidal’s Nation article. This is certainly encouraging. What is not encouraging is that not a word has been heard from any of the 18 friends and admirers of the Nation whom I cited by name for remaining silent. That is the second reason I was surprised.

For the rest, only one serious charge has been made by my critics. It is that I was too easy on the Right in general and on William F. Buckley, Jr. in particular. Yet the fact remains that Buckley and his fellow editors of National Review went out of their way to dissociate themselves from Joseph Sobran’s anti-Semitic writings, even though those writings had been published elsewhere. If Victor Navasky and his fellow editors of theNation had done something similar with regard to Vidal’s piece, which was published in their own magazine, I in turn would have gone much easier on them.