January 1- 7, 2004

mailbag

Letters to the Editor

by the Readers

More on Barnes

I have been closely following the reports of the distressed finances at the Barnes Foundation ["Thy Will Be Done?," Dec. 4, 2003; "Artful Dodging," Dec. 18, 2003, Deborah Bolling]. Please, call Bill Gates for assistance with the Pew Trust. This institution is one of Philadelphia's greatest treasures and it must be kept in accordance with Dr. Barnes' will. What a shame the Lincoln faction has stepped away.

Try anything. Raise the admission. Plead for donations. Plead with the Fords or the Rockefellers. Provide a box on the state income tax forms for donations, just like the feds do for presidential campaigns. Exhaust all measures, but keep the Barnes intact. Honor Dr. Barnes' vision and insight.

The Barnes must be kept free of the clamor of the almighty dollar and appreciated for the treasure that it is.

Diana R. Smith
Via E-mail

The evidence presented by the Barnes Foundation trustees in court earlier this month shows that keeping the collection in the Paul Cret gallery in Merion is far from impossible.

Ker-Feal -- which is described in a Barnes exhibit as "primarily heavily wooded, untouched land" -- is worth at least $12 million. In addition, its contents were valued at at least $4 million in 1990 in a Barnes Foundation document supplied to the court.

The sale of Ker-Feal and its contents (which have never served as much more than an occasional class-trip destination, and which the founder's indenture of trust does not restrict from sale) would bring an endowment of at least $16 million. At a reasonable income rate of 4 percent, this is an extra $640,000 per year. Combine that with an extra $465,000 in admission revenue if the court allowed an increase from the current $5 to the $12.50 charged by many museums, including the Philadelphia Museum of Art. This $1.1 million in regular annual funds exceeds the Foundation's entire 1990 budget, and well exceeds recent annual deficits, which are around $800,000, according to Barnes management.

Even the $800,000 figure may be excessive. In court, the trustees presented data that showed an average annual drop in "available net assets" between 1998 and 2002 of roughly $425,000. Thus, the extra $1.1 million would more than compensate for this loss, even without the much-needed belt-tightening that many recommend.

Keeping the Barnes artwork in Merion is less a matter of finances than of willpower and integrity. It can be accomplished if those in charge want it to be.

Nicholas M. Tinari Jr.
Broomall

We Got Him. So?

I was not surprised at your absence of support or praise for the capturing of Saddam ["Saddam on the Stand," Pretzel Logic, Howard Altman, Dec. 18, 2003]. I became sick to my stomach when you said we are not a safer country with Saddam in our possession. Are you human? You praise yourself on researching the war and Saddam's history. Well, my friend, continue your research because you don't have a clue! WE ARE A SAFER COUNTRY WITH SADDAM CAPTURED. Put your Bush hatred aside and your liberal spin away for once in your paper.

I feel for Ellen Mariani. Honestly, I do. My grandfather was a single-star general in WWII. I understand death caused by hatred and war better than most my age. I can feel her search for answers for her husband's death but must respectfully disagree with her notion that our president had hard knowledge that we were going to be attacked. I don't think Mariani understands how many terrorist threats come across our country's intelligence desk every day. I would never think any human being, Democrat or Republican, would ignore any viable threat to U.S. security. It is sad to think so. Except if you're Saddam or bin Laden. Get the picture? I think you do.

Give it up, Altman. We are safer with Saddam captured.

T.S. DeLuca
via e-mail

Equal Time for All

Howard Dean hedges his bets by not going too much further than the other guys in joining the now popular idea that America isn't much safer with Saddam being caught. But how can you join the general media (which is also corporate-dominated) in ignoring the fellow who goes further by directly saying U.S. occupation out, United Nations in?

He makes the connection that when the money for the military goes to Iraq, our country loses the war against poverty and ignorance at home. Go to www.kucinich.us for a straightforward and clear direction for America. Here's Dennis Kucinich, a congressman who was the only candidate to vote against the war and the Patriot Act. His actions match his words in all areas of public needs and he is specific -- none of the generalities one hears from the others.

He has a wonderful history of fighting for the common people against the corporations. He doesn't get corporate donations so he's not beholden as the other guys are. He's a ray of hope for a grassroots movement to make our weak Democrats tackle issues.

As he said beautifully in the New Hampshire debate (which brought the house down with great applause), candidates should be talking about issues people need addressed in their daily life, not endorsements, polls (which I will add are also manipulated like the media) and money.

Obviously, candidates for president don’t want the vote of commoners like me, only the moneyed folks who pay for play. No wonder that so few people feel inclined to vote since, until Kucinich, there hasn’t been anything but "lesser of two evils," which has become untenable. You can’t fool all the people all the time. However, with Kucinich, we have a positive reason to vote for a true spokesperson.

Even to work on his campaign for truth and clarity is a privilege and a joy.

Joan Sage
Via E-mail

Ho, Ho, Ho

I've got no ax to grind, promise. Planet's full of 'em so I don't wanna add to the ever-growing list. Me? I'm Catholic, 45, Irish, born at Nazareth in West Philly, live year-round at the beach in Jersey. I commute to Camden every day, work in real estate, self-employed. Got a house full of girls and grand-girls. I dig it and wouldn't have it any other way. God has blessed me.

There, now you know me briefly, except I've also been a songwriter for the past 31 years. Presently, I have two in Hollywood, working on one in Nashville and am also the author of "The Ballad of Danny Faulkner." (It's free upon request.) All of which leads me to your piece, "Say Christmas for Me" [Slant, Amy L. Webb, Dec. 11, 2003].

Apparently, you feel some difference between yourself and myself because of our spiritual beliefs and backgrounds. That's a shame. It's what fucks the world up, thinking we're all different when actually our creator loves us all the same.

More to the point, the man who raised my mother -- the grandfather I knew, loved, dearly miss and respected -- was none other than Nathan Seidenstein, who was definitely not Irish or Catholic. Yet, he bought me my first crucifix, which hung over my bed when I was an infant and remains there to this day. I view it as an act of his faith telling me to love my faith.

You can view it as you wish, but I love him, my pop-pop. It was an act of total love for his adopted daughter, my mom, a mother of six, to let her know his love was for her and hers, not the differences in people.

So, where am I headed? Simple.

I find you had a good point. However, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," "Frosty the Snowman," "Jingle Bell Rock" and other songs like those are clearly not Christmas songs. Like how you, either intentionally or otherwise, omitted the "T" in "Chrissake" at the close of your piece, these songs -- unlike "O Holy Night" -- omitted Christ completely from their lyrics and thoughts. It's Hallmark thinking, for the almighty dollar. (For anyone actually interested, Christ was born in September.)

There is a historical, spiritual and musical difference between holiday songs and Christmas songs that celebrate the birth of the Christ child. (It always amazes me that people who don't believe in his existence commonly throw his name around as if they believe he did.)

Frosty is not Jesus.

Michael McGettigan
Long Beach Island, N.J.

Slant will return next week.