ustxtxb_obs_1984_03_23_50_00031-00000_000.pdf

people best. The congressmen he admired most in Washington were those who had the courage and vision to serve well both their country and their own districts. He believed further that good regional newspapers played a fundamental and important role in the successful functioning of democracy. . . . He took young people and their aspirations seriously. He made us feel that our ideas had merit, and that we could become a part of noble enterprises.” Happily we shall be hearing again from Hardeman at length, in due time, on Sam Rayburn. For the meantime we may close this review with two paragraphs Hardeman wrote for a memorial service for Hale Boggs, passages that were concerned with the U.S. House of Representatives. “More than walls, members, and parliamentary ritual,” Hardeman wrote, “the House is a symbol of America’s search for freedom and justice. During 184 years 10,000 men and women have wrought its history with heroes like Madison, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln and Webster along with the unremembered whose unsung contributions are history too. “A member of the British House of Commons, John Buchan, understood it thusly: ‘What made it all so impressive and in its way effective? Partly the long tradition . . . men just like them, no better informed or abler, had preserved our liberties . . . Chiefly the House was truly representative . . . the people .. . were governing, not a batch of supermen.’ ” DIALOGUE \(Continued from Page concerning Edwin Shrake’s recent production. It was a pleasure to see the truth about “Pancho Villa’s Wedding Day” so eloquently expressed in print. I saw a scene from the play and the effusive praise for it on the Marian Halloway Show, which is hardly the place to find intelligent reviews, but as Mr. Reece made clear, objective reviews on this play were not found anywhere in the local media. It seems to be an example of the ‘halo effect’ in which people just cannot be honest about someone because they like him, and they try to believe the best about his work, and in this case, because he is a good buddy of all the right people. For whatever reason, the public was given the impression that this was an excellent play that they shouldn’t miss. I wonder how many left the theater, shorn of the considerable ticket price, too bemused by the hoopla of the media to realize that the play was in reality, simply and utterly worthless. Apparently you don’t need even a mediocre script to have your play enthusiastically reviewed; if you’re part of the in-crowd, all you need is money and you, too, can score a sold-out play. Congratulations to The Observer and to Ray Reece for the integrity to recognize and so adroitly state that beneath the halo, and despite the special effects, stands nothing but a well-heeled turkey. Debra Powers, Austin. More Work Thanks to your reviewer for taking the hide off Terms of Endearment are due and hereby rendered. Anybody who was professor of English at an engineering school is bound to have some serious flaws as a creative writer, and your reviewer not only found them but nailed them to the wall. And the discussion about the difference between art and entertainment, and how the movie cheats in order to join the latter category, was first rate. Give the guy more work. Print this praise. What more can a happy reader say? James M. Yeager, Takoma Park, MD. Abortion Credibility A prime consideration for the editor of a journal of opinion is, I assume, the credibility he hopes to establish among his readers. You will understand, therefore, why I feel constrained to raise some questions about the article on abortion in your February 24 issue. To begin with, the author states that “polls continue to indicate that a majority of voters believe abortion to be a matter of individual choice.” Since I had pointed out to you in a letter dated February 10 that the opposite is true, am I being finicky in expecting a more cautious expression of that claim in your pages? Reputable studies show that 20 % of all Americans oppose abortion under any circumstances, 25 % reject all restraint and the remainder would permit it only under serious limitations: incest, rape or danger to the mother. Obviously that 55 % can be combined with either of the two smaller figures to express a generalization. Which, in your view, is the more honest formulation? Secondly, the article parrots the usual objection to legislation requiring abortionists to provide a prospective aborter details on what abortion involves. As a presumed proponent of an informed citizenry, how do you react to your author’s support for censorship? In the decade since Roe v. Wade numerous books have been published on the abortion issue. They document the biological and political realities that are ignored by the abortion lobby, which cons the public with such ad hominem phraseology as “unpleasant questions” and “nasty billboards,” or the whole gamut of Orwellian gobbledygook implicit in “reproductive choice.” Finally, how does this article fit your professed intent “to serve no group” and not to “cater to the ignoble in the human spirit”? Am I justified in asking whether your credibility should be judged on your commitment to “hew hard to the truth” or on how you fulfill that commitment? Edward M. Corbett, Commerce. Impeachment Tree Dear Mr. Dugger: I hold you in high regard for integrity and sympathy for the downtrodden but must say you and Mr. Gonzalez are barking up a dead tree talking of Ronald Reagan’s impeachment. On what reasonable grounds, pray tell? I have fought my share of windmills but learned, late to be true, that there is a point beyond which bias become bigotry, even among liberals imagining themselves to be poetic idealists. I suggest you sprinkle your Reagan impeachment crusade with a touch of practicality. Martin Hauan, Oklahoma City. THE TEXAS OBSERVER 31