If you haven't read the New York Times' exceptional obituary of Ms. Ephron do so. Meanwhile, we have been relishing our own small piece of Ephron's legacy: The You've Got Mail character Frank Navasky, played by Greg Kinnear.

Frank Navasky was the boyfriend of Meg Ryan's character in the film. He was also a reporter for the New York Observer.

As IMDB puts it:

Frank Navasky is a columnist for the New York Observer. His columns often feature protests against the effects of technology on society. As a result, prior to the arrest of Theodore Kaczynski, he was sometimes jokingly mentioned as possibly being the Unabomber. He is particularly skeptical about the advantages of computers, and is famous for his pæans to the electric typewriter. He was also a prominent participant in a movement, ultimately unsuccessful, to save The Shop Around the Corner, a children's bookstore.

Frank Navasky comes off, at times, as arrogant, slightly obsessive-compulsive, a narcissist, and an indignant anti-capitalist.

For example, this is the scene in which he meets Tom Hanks' character Joe Fox, for the first time:

In the original script, Frank worked for a paper called "The Independent," but it was clearly modeled after The Observer, which is what they ended up using in the film. A lot of good it did him. Spoiler alert: They eventually split, and Ryan ends up with Tom Hanks.

Ephron was a well-chronicled character in the Observer, especially from the late 80s onward. One of the earliest mentions of her in the paper came in a July 25, 1988 story by Michael M. Thomas ("The Midas Watch: The Punishing Hamptons Social Scene of '88"). She was also a regular fixture in The Transom, the front-of-book column of boldfaced names. 

I'd heard from a Observer editor a few years ago that the character of Frank was based on Frank DiGiacomo, the former Vanity Fair writer (and soon-to-be-former Gatecrasher editor) who oversaw The Transom for a number of years while at The Observer. After all, the character was named Frank, and is a slightly cantankerous wiseass (which is an apt description of many an Observer reporter and editor over the years).

As it turns out, though, that tip was probably a decade-old bit of pranksterism passed down to me. The character was actually a sweet tribute to Observer writer Ron Rosenbaum, the man who reportedly inspired Steve Jobs to start a little company called Apple Computers.

Mr. Rosenbaum, who currently writes The Spectator at Slate, shared Ephron's views on many a topic: An avowed love of Charles Portis as well as the erstwhile Upper East Side watering hole, Elaine's (the setting for Rosenbaum's novel Murder at Elaine's, which Ephron once attempted to adapt into a musical with Roy Blount Jr.). Mr. Rosenbaum and Ephron also worked together on [MORE] Magazine and a satirical conference named for A.J. Liebling that Time once called "Journalism's Woodstock."

So what did Rosenbaum think of the character? Ironically—at least as it regards Rosenbaum—the answer was, while a little buried, already out there on the Internet, not too long after the movie had been released.

In a 1999 column for Slate about adapting to new technology, he wrote:

So, I may not be a Luddite, but I play one on TV, or I'm played as one if you rent and watch You've Got Mail. If you can get past the chirpy sentimentalizing of terminally insipid e-mails by tragically insipid stars Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks, you'll find in the film a relatively benign caricature of a New York Observer writer with arcane literary and philosophical preoccupations who crusades to save an independent bookstore from being crushed by a big chain store, who rejects computer culture and rhapsodizes over his typewriter--an Olympia Report Deluxe electric. Now, it just so happens that I am a New York Observer columnist (click here to download me) with arcane literary interests (see the interview with me posted in Feed last month, if you care) who launched a crusade to save an independent bookstore (called Books & Co.) and who wrote a column rhapsodizing over his typewriter--an Olympia Report Deluxe electric--while working on a doomed film project with future You've Got Mail director Nora Ephron.

The column confirms on a intimate level what Ephron was able to capture so well and so often in her work: Two people, with shared interests and creative outlets, one acting as a muse for the other. The Observer’s appearance in the film is an obscure footnote to Ephron's work and life, but one that makes working for this paper a bit sweeter.

The film's larger contribution is the way it made New York feel like a small town. It took an amazing talent and a special kind of insight to do that, and the place hasn't been the same since.

For that, and in so many other ways, large and small, she'll be missed.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

At the time, Mr. Jarvis—a former magazine editor-turned-digital evangelist—responded by calling Mr. Rosenbaum "a pissy third grader," which sparked an on-going war of words and inspired The Observer's John Koblin to spend some time with The Web Guru in November.

The war continues with Mr. Rosenbaum's latest Slate column from Friday, all about Billy Joel, "The Worst Pop Singer Ever."

In the middle of a pointed, at times brutal, critique of Mr. Joel's work, Mr. Rosenbaum offers this tiny aside:

Stay turned for Mr. Jarvis' counter-attack-ack-ack-ack.

Here’s a blow-by-blow, so far:

In his Nov. 11 column published last night, Mr. Rosenbaum throws the first crustless PB & J sandwich at Mr. Jarvis by saying he's running for "New Media Pontificator in Chief" and becoming "increasingly heartless about the reporters, writers, and other 'content providers' who have been put out on the street by the changes in the industry," he wrote.

"Sometimes it sounds as if he's virtually dancing on their graves."

Mr. Jarvis used to be a friend of print journalism. He was former television critic for TV Guide and People magazine, and associate publisher of The New York Daily News. And, as he's so fond of reminding readers, he created Entertainment Weekly.

Mr. Jarvis left print to join the bright New Media world. "He took to blogging and—eventually—blogging about blogging," Mr. Rosenbaum wrote. "Recently he has even begun to host international forums and self-proclaimed new-media summits, when not directing J-school programs focused on new media (at the City University of New York) or raking in consulting fees from old-media giants like The New York Times and Advance Publications, the parent company of Condé Nast."

And now, as print journalists fall, Mr. Rosenbaum argues, Mr. Jarvis is kicking 'em while their down.

Mr. Rosenbaum quotes Mr. Jarvis’ response to an American Journalism Review essay by Paul Farhi, in which he said, "The fall of journalism is, indeed, journalists' fault. It is our fault that we did not see the change coming soon enough and ready our craft for the transition."

Mr. Rosenbaum writes:

He even attacks Mr. Jarvis’ new book, What Would Google Do?, in which he doesn’t speak with anyone who actually works for Google.

"It makes you wonder," Mr. Rosenbaum writes, "whether Jarvis has actually done any, you know, reporting. Particularly when he tells you that in doing his book on the total wonderfulness of Google, he decided it would be better not to speak to anyone who works at Google, that instead he's written about the idea of Google, as he construes it, rather than finding out how they—the actual Google people—construe it."

Mr. Jarvis responded around high noon on Buzzmachine:

Mr. Jarvis claims Mr. Rosenbaum's criticism doesn't solve any of the immediate problems in journalism. "Sadly, Rosenbaum doesn't debate the idea and history and fate of journalism, which might be productive or at least provocative. Instead, like a pissy third grader, he attacks me."

Mr. Jarvis then gives tons of evidence of all the meetings and croissants he's shared with newspaper editors and owners, trying to hack out how to solve all of journalism's problems.

Defending his research for his book, he writes, "I interviewed many people like [Paulo] Coelho. I chose not to seek official and controlled access to Google and in my acknowledgments in the book," choosing instead to "listening to the market."

Mr. Jarvis also tries to steer the blame:

Mr. Jarvis' comrade, Mr. Godin, responded in the comments section:

Another commenter, “joe O” had this to say:

To the Editor:

I really enjoyed and appreciated David Foxley’s article on my late boss, King Features editor in chief Jay Kennedy [“Jay Kennedy, Editor of Cartoonists, Arts and Newspaper Archivist, 50,” March 26]. It was truly insightful reading about his hobbies, friendships and personal background. He will be sorely missed in the cartoon industry.

Just F.Y.I.: The article mentioned my comic strip, The Pajama Diaries. My name, as the cartoonist, is actually Terri Libenson; the main character is Jill Kaplan. No worries, this happens frequently—I just thought I’d mention it.

Thanks again for bringing to light so many wonderful aspects of Jay’s personality. I only had the privilege of knowing him for two years, but his impact on my career was tremendous.

Terri Libenson
Cleveland, Ohio

Who’s Going to Pick Up the Bill?

To the Editor:

Thank you for Matthew Schuerman’s intelligent and well-informed article about Starrett City [“Bruce T. and Chuck S. Rumble in Starrett City,” March 19].

There is one question about this transaction that no one in the press or in politics has addressed. Senator Schumer wants to see Starrett City owned by someone who will “keep the development as an oasis of well-maintained affordable housing.” My question is: Who does Senator Schumer (or anyone else) think is going to do this? If the Bistricer deal is killed, does anyone really believe that Disque Deane and his partners are going to maintain this project indefinitely as a matter of public service? Who is going to buy this place if they are never allowed to make any money?

One answer is public ownership: The feds, the state and the city can get together and buy the project at a discount. I haven’t seen any of the politicians involved in this fight step up to the plate for that.

The other answer is the same one we got back in the 70’s with rent control: Sooner or later, the landlord loses interest and abandons the buildings (or sells out to someone else who does).

All of us would like to believe that housing is cheap, just as we would all like to believe in the Big Rock Candy Mountain. New York went through a lot of pain for many years to learn that the fairy tale isn’t true.

Paul Model
Manhattan

Cuomo and Class

To the Editor:

According to Ron Rosenbaum, the Georgia native, Newt Gingrich, looked like a “Dickensian fat cat” when he spoke of real and palpable improvements in New York City’s quality of life [“Cuomo and Newt at Cooper Union: Gunfire and Orchestras,” March 12]. Why? Because Georgian Newt failed to make note of New York’s unappealing underbelly, i.e., Mario Cuomo’s old neighborhood. Fair enough.

But what are we to say about Mario, an honest-to-goodness, sumptuously wealthy Park Avenue “fat cat,” when he deigns to limousine out to his old neighborhood and, upon observing the results of the many decades of thoroughly and tragically failed liberal policy there, the best that he can offer by way of contrition is some juvenile, hollow prose about “gunfire” and “orchestras”? Incidentally, I never quite understand people like Mr. Cuomo anyway. Is it that they want Wall Street and the Upper West Side to look like South Jamaica? Or vice versa?

O.K., amidst all of the Rosenbaum swooning and flap-doodle about “The Speech” and Mario’s Dickensian “Tale of Two Cities,” Ron finally gushes at what he found to be “a virtuoso display of theological erudition.” One man’s “theological erudition” is another’s duplicitous posturing. Place me firmly in the “another’s” group. In his advocacy for unbridled (embryonic) stem-cell research, Mr. Cuomo as usual sets a false argument between Aquinas, who wrote that life began 30 days from conception, and Augustine, who theorized that it was 15 days.

Bulletin to Mr. Cuomo: We know precisely when life begins. No matter how wise and inspired these men were, we don’t need to look to the fourth or the 13th century for this kind of information.

Jim McCaffrey
Sarasota, Fla.

Ron Rosenbaum replies:

So many factual errors and misreadings in this letter that it’s hard to fathom the smugness. Fact, re quality of life: the New York Times headline “With a Record Number of Homeless Families, City Vows to Improve Aid” [March 19, 2007]. Guess you don’t see them in Sarasota. Fact: Mr. Cuomo neither favors “unbridled” stem-cell research nor abortions (I’d suggest he read Mr. Cuomo’s famous Notre Dame speech on the abortion question before making any further embarrassing displays of ignorance). Mr. Cuomo believes abortions are more effectively reduced through promoting sex education and adoption than absolutist law. Fact: The point Mr. Cuomo was making in citing the theologians’ differences is that even Catholic saints can disagree—that it is, thus, a difficult religious question for some, not a closed question for know-it-alls.

To the Editor:

Your Dec. 18 editorial “Will Pataki Poison Spitzer’s Well?” illustrates the hypocrisy of outgoing Republican Governor George Pataki. After the 1994 elections, as the Governor-elect, Mr. Pataki was critical of the man he defeated, Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo. Arguing that the voters had given him a mandate to serve as chief executive for the next four years—which included appointing people to management positions in the state government to assist him in implementing his programs and philosophy—Mr. Pataki objected that Mr. Cuomo, in the 11th hour, was appointing several hundred of his friends to positions that Mr. Pataki felt should have been his to fill. How ironic that, 12 years later, Mr. Pataki, in the twilight weeks of his final term, continues to practice what he criticized in his predecessor. Some of these appointments make sense, in order to maintain a political balance between Democrats and Republicans on nonpartisan and sensitive agency or board commissions. But in too many instances, these actions by Mr. Pataki & Co. are the moral equivalent of stuffing ballot boxes. Traditionally in politics, on a bipartisan basis at all levels of government, there has always been the notion that to the victor goes the “spoils” after any election. In this case, we have the losers—Mr. Pataki and colleagues—pigging out before Mr. Spitzer and friends can come into town. It would be interesting to cross-reference a list of all of these last-minute Pataki appointments with those who “voluntarily” contributed to any of Mr. Pataki’s direct or so-called independent political-action committees supporting his 2008 Presidential campaign. Remember, these appointments must also be confirmed by Mr. Pataki’s fellow G.O.P. member, State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. How many of these appointees will also be making “voluntary” financial contributions to the G.O.P. 2008 State Senate campaign committee? Will any of them run in the 2008 G.O.P. Presidential primary as delegates pledged to Mr. Pataki? Is there any political quid pro quo at work here between the appointees and either Mr. Pataki or Mr. Bruno? Any independent observer of state government would have to give Mr. Pataki a well-deserved A+ for sheer arrogance on this issue.

Larry Penner

Great Neck, N.Y.

Demonizing Iran Does No Good

To the Editor:

Reading Ron Rosenbaum’s musings on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest attempts to win the hearts and minds of Arabs everywhere, I see that Mr. Rosenbaum is, alas, sadly clueless about what makes the world go round [“The Iranian ‘Scholars’: Times Bends Backwards for Holocaust Deniers,” The Edgy Enthusiast, Dec. 18].

Mr. Ahmadinejad is the natural product of almost 15 years of demonization of Iran by Zionists in America. The demonization started in the early 90’s and manifested itself in many ways: from portraying Iranians as wife abusers and child abductors (Not Without My Daughter was even shot in Israel), to lobbying for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (the Bronfman family saw to that, by means of Al D’Amato); their efforts included successful lobbying against the mending of ties between Iran and America (AIPAC saw to that), the inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil” by Presidential speechwriter David Frum, and the current brazen attempts to auction off 2,500-year-old Persian artifacts on loan to the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute. These folks dismissed the attempts by Mohammad Khatami (Mr. Ahmadinejad’s reformist predecessor, who made a point of visiting synagogues in Tehran) to create a dialogue among civilizations, and even protested his visits to the U.S. The natural question all along was: Why Iran, with its small but thriving Jewish population, and not, for instance, Pakistan, with both its nuclear weapons and its byzantine ties to Al Qaeda? The answer is that Iran, with a population fascinated with everything American, can be a natural strategic ally to the U.S. in the region, even replacing Israel. This is not something that Israel’s so-called friends in America can permit to happen. So please, Mr. Rosenbaum, stop gazing at your beautiful navel and connect the dots.

Mr. Ahmadinejad may be a monster; but then we reap what we sow.

Neil Fazel

Manhattan

Ron Rosenbaum’s response:

Brilliant blame-the-victim analysis! Does the writer believe Hitler was the fault of the Jews as well?

To the Editor:

Thanks for the thoughtful review of Bob Dylan’s new album and current incarnation [“Fix Is In on Dylan: Modern Times Worst Since Self-Portrait,” Ron Rosenbaum, Edgy Enthusiast, Sept. 11]. I don’t agree wholeheartedly, but I appreciate Mr. Rosenbaum’s well-pleaded case that allowed me to think deeper about my attitude toward Mr. Dylan’s latest work.

That said, I treasure Mr. Dylan’s last three albums (I, too, dislike the idea of the trilogy) as much, perhaps even more, than that other “trilogy” from his first creative zenith. There are a variety of reasons: I’m growing up with them as they are released; his voice, I feel, is more evocative, expressive and even triumphant than ever before; I can see him play old and new songs in concert and flip them all on end.

This idea of “rootsiness” appeals to me, since I feel my generation is more a pastiche culture than any other. All of our clothes and ideas seem borrowed, so why shouldn’t the music be, if it’s good? Dylan has adopted these older forms while making them “new” through lyrical juxtapositions delivered with trademark phrasing. Where else will you find a jogging politician “running for office” placed beside a quote from President Lincoln? This is theft, yes, but with joie de vivre and a whopping good time that I don’t find elsewhere, not even in the originals he steals.

I’m sure Mr. Rosenbaum is getting plenty of upset e-mails. That’s unfortunate, because it’s necessary to be critical of one’s heroes. When done modestly and thoughtfully, as he’s done, it’s the best tribute one could offer. I don’t appreciate the cult of Mr. Dylan barring criticism, especially since I don’t believe Modern Times lives up to Love and Theft, my favorite album of his, so I welcome any straightforward reaction thrown into this tiring discourse.

Evan Kennedy

Brooklyn

Novel Touch

To the Editor:

Thank you for this timely and heartfelt column [“An Honest French Novel and a Message for Today,” Richard Brookhiser, The National Observer, Sept. 11]. An excellent novel of recent vintage that touches upon many of the same themes is Edie Meidav’s Crawl Space.

Biff Dorsey

Portland, Ore.

To the Editor:

I like Joe Conason because I think he’s a stand-up guy. He has been an ardent defender of President Clinton and his administration’s accomplishments. So it is with regret that I conclude that he has gotten Joe Lieberman all wrong in his July 17 column [“Lieberman Misses Point of Opponents”].

Senator Lieberman has a proven track record of taking on big business—just ask the oil industry and Hollywood—from his days as Connecticut’s attorney general to his career in the Senate. He also has a proven track record of working for the people of Connecticut, and that means fighting to keep jobs in the state whether they are defense-related, insurance companies, small and medium-sized exporters or pharmaceutical companies. Because of his efforts, 33,000 jobs were saved at the state’s submarine base. That’s what a Senator is supposed to do: stand up for the people of his state.

The idea that Mr. Lieberman’s wife or anyone else sways him to take a position that he might not otherwise have taken is just plain wrong. I have worked for him and known him for nearly 20 years, and Joe Lieberman is all about integrity. Besides, his wife is an advisor, not a lobbyist for Hill and Knowlton or anyone else. As to the New Haven Register editorial that Mr. Conason refers to in his article, it disagrees with the Senator’s policy position. It does not question his integrity.

Joe Lieberman works for the people of Connecticut, and if he does anyone’s “bidding,” it is theirs.

Bill Danvers

Arlington, Va.

No God in Vegas

To the Editor:

Star Jones’ consultation with God, and all of those other chosen ones, needs to be taken down a notch [“Are You There, God? It’s Moi, Muddled …. ”, Simon Doonan, Simon Says, July 17].

I cringe whenever I hear someone say, “God was watching over me, therefore I was spared.” Or when I’m at the casino and the person next to me makes the sign of the cross before pulling that handle on the slot machine. Or after they win something, they say, “Thank you, God.” I told one lady, “Do you think God wants you to be gambling?”

Mary Lorene Salgardo

Fort Pierce, Fla.

Dearest Mommie

To the Editor:

I simply wanted to write and say I vastly enjoyed Mr. Taylor’s review of the new edition of Mommie Dearest [“No More Wire Hangers! Dunaway’s Mommie Returns,” Mr. DVD, July 3-10]. He really dug deep into the true meaning of the story and revealed it—not something easy to do. The comparison to Sunset Blvd. was also intriguing. Both films, after all, are about how a society throws things away—something both Joan and Norma were afraid of. Now the only thing I can complain about is his claim at the end of the review that Joan turned into a monster. Although this may be true—and certainly the character in the film did—I do not feel one can say for certain that Ms. Crawford became that monster. There are conflicting opinions, after all (Carl Johnes’ The Last Years, for one). Anyway, great review and thanks!

Jonathon Denson

Lansing, Mich.

Tears for Lears

To the Editor:

Re “Considering King Lear: Kline Road-Tests Part in Super-Secret Heath” [Ron Rosenbaum, The Edgy Enthusiast, July 3-10]: I’m a 67-year-old amateur actor. (Two or three dozen provincial-theater roles, Lear not among them.) I had to cry onstage, once. Raised to not cry, I couldn’t.

In preparing for my crying moment (I hope the inspiration for this was mine; don’t remember), I went to Lear’s last speech. It was the five-times-uttered “never” that stopped me cold. In the Lears I’d seen, the actors, I felt—all of them—failed to give those “nevers” their due. The more I read them and mouthed them, the more I was persuaded that a world is contained in them and that each is perfectly different from the others, ending with a finality and naked affirmation that chills the bones.

Anyway, that last speech—with its breathing dog, horse and rat, and its still Cordelia—made me cry while practicing it. I rushed to a mirror and looked at my ugly, buckled face. I listened to my voice breaking like an adolescent boy’s. I was living alone after 18 years of raising my three kids (two girls) as a single father, so I could do this without self-consciousness or alarming anybody. What a weird moment!

When I finally had to do it onstage, I got lots of compliments, nobody noticing that I was actually dry-eyed. I haven’t tried in a long time, but I’d bet Lear would still yank tears from me—at least my Lear.

As for Kline’s, Mr. Rosenbaum didn’t say. His article was provocative and a fucking tease.

Mitch Clogg

Mendocino, Calif.

To the Editor:

I’m sure you’ve received an onslaught of e-mails regarding Ron Rosenbaum’s article [“Uses of Disenchantment: TV Anchor-Mom Fights Autism and Films It,” Edgy Enthusiast, June 5], but I felt the need to commend Mr. Rosenbaum on his piece, which exposes the real-life issues of the families of children with autism.

Not many people really get it, but he did. He expressed the importance of understanding the real truth of this disorder and the profound effect it has on the families afflicted with it.

I have a son with autism and a daughter, who is his twin sister. My wife and I both fully understand the burden his friend Lauren has and the stress she goes through on a day-to-day basis.

Please give Lauren my praises for her short film and let her know that she is not alone in this fight. If she or her husband has any desire to reach out, I would be happy to listen and offer our experience in hopes that it might help. I know how isolating it can be to have a child with autism and wanted to offer my support.

I hope Mr. Rosenbaum continues to enlighten your readers about autism and bring attention to this awful developmental disorder that will someday be “kicked to the curb.”

Harris Greenberger

Weston, Conn.

You Gotta Be Livid

To the Editor:

John Koblin’s sour piece on the Mets was fraught with the kind of defensiveness that Yankees fans have felt toward the Mets and their fans since the 60’s [“Heady Mets Fans Swarm City, Mike Wallace Is a Convert,” June 5]. First of all, Mets fans come from everywhere—even Manhattan. The Mets are the progeny of two teams: the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants—the former played in the fourth-largest city in America (not to be easily dismissed as “the outer boroughs”) and the latter played at the Polo Grounds in upper Manhattan. What seems to have always raised the ire of Yankees fans, though, is the blow to their sense of entitlement: After New York lost its two National League teams in the late 50’s, there was the mistaken assumption that all of New York would rush to the Bronx. But they didn’t. National League fans mourned their losses and waited it out until they again had a team of their own. For fans of the Yankees—who have an admittedly larger fan base than the Mets (that’s what 100 years and a lot of success in the business will get you)—to gripe about the Mets is as undignified as Republicans who rant against liberals even as they themselves control the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. What the hell’s Mr. Koblin’s problem? Twenty-six World Series rings. Babe freakin’ Ruth. We get it.

I (a Manhattanite) have been a Mets season-ticket holder since the early 90’s—that’s nearly 20 years of really bad baseball. But the Mets are my team, and I’ve stuck with them. If you really want to reflect the measure of loyalty in this city, notice—as Mr. Koblin’s article does—how many fewer Yankees caps are seen around town these days. And if, by playing well, our team wins some converts, what’s wrong with that? What the hell do you think has attracted Yankees fans all these years? Losing? As far as “that garish color scheme” is concerned, I find going to Shea a fun, lively place; going to somnolent Yankee Stadium feels like a visit to my accountant’s office. And to Leon Cataderas, who advises Mets fans to “Relax, man, relax, just wait till the end of the season,” I say: That’s exactly the kind of smug condescension that so many people, Mets fans and others, find so repellent about Yankees fans. And that’s why, for the most part, while Yankees fans loathe the Mets, Mets fans are relatively indifferent to the Yankees. After all, they’ve won before and they’ll win again. But for a few weeks in April and May, Mets fans get to turn their faces to the sun and bask.

Bennett Windheim

Manhattan

To the Editor:

I really liked Ron Rosenbaum’s Rosanne Cash piece [“I Got Rosanne Cash’s Black Cadillac Album and Barely Survived,” The Edgy Enthusiast, April 10]. It is quite wonderful that father and daughter could be so far from each other’s stance theologically and still have so much love between them—a lesson for all of us these days.

The pantheistic apocalyptic stuff is also present in mystical Judaism, as I’m sure you know: the notion of the yetzer tov and yetzerhara.

I have always followed Mr. Rosenbaum’s writing, especially what he has written about Bob Dylan. This piece makes me want to run out and get Black Cadillac right away.

Martin Grossman

Portland, Ore.

To the Editor:

I believe Rosanne is saying that her love changes—sometimes she loves like a brother, then perhaps like a son, etc. It eventually cycles back to and through each different type of love. Each type of love is not forever, because it evolves and changes, yet because it will again return, it is never done.

That’s my take, and I’m running with it. As with Dylan or any great literature or art, the meaning and interpretation is up to the beholder. So whatever works for you ….

Nice article, Mr. Rosenbaum. She’ll never marry you though, so move on!

Arthur Berriman

Barrington, R.I.

To the Editor:

Maybe Lucretius couldn’t have come up with it, but, as it happens, Dylan surely could.

José Iujvidin

Buenos Aires, Argentina

A Hate Supreme

To the Editor:

I agree with Joe Conason that Antonin Scalia does not have the judicial temperament to be on the Supreme Court [“So Who Put the Temper in Judicial Temperament?”, April 3]. The classic example is still Bush v. Gore: Justice Scalia intervened in an area of states’ rights where the court clearly had no jurisdiction. Justice is supposed to be blind, but Justice Scalia has demonstrated time and time again that he believes the court exists solely to promote his right-wing political agenda.

Reba Shimansky

Manhattan

Anti-Communist, But Not McCarthyite

To the Editor:

In his review of Tom Wicker’s book on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy [“Harmful Man, Harmful Myth: The Misplaced Liberal Concern,” March 27], Charles Peters holds that Mr. Wicker ignores what he calls “the myth of McCarthyism: the idea that all the charges made by McCarthy and his allies were false.” He goes on to note that “there were real spies—not only Alger Hiss … but Harry Dexter White … Lauchlin Currie … and David Greenglass …. ”

I don’t know whom Mr. Peters has in mind as McCarthy’s allies, but I would point out that the junior Senator from Wisconsin had absolutely nothing to do with exposing or investigating any of these figures. They were exposed by others, including members of the F.B.I. And second, there were more than a few liberal anti-communists—Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. comes to mind—who were aware and highly vocal about the existence of Soviet spies in the U.S. during World War II, long before the Venona decrypts were revealed.

Matt Clark

Manhattan

Charles Peters responds:

I was one of those anti-communist liberals and, of course, am proud of the stand they took, but far too many of our brethren on the left were guilty of habitually minimizing the danger.

More than that, he has something that the late and unlamented Larry Summers never had, never could have: a humane set of values. Summers epitomized the worst of the meritocracy, the insulated belief of the intelligent that they deserve their place on top because they scored high on the SATs and make more money than other people. It's a complacent materialism that is as nauseating in its way as Babbitt's or General Motors' in days of yore, but with the sheen of blue-state high-culture on it (and, in Summers's case, Jewish tribal self-involvement). Lemann's life and work show that you can be as smart as Summers, actually smarter, and care about ordinary people.

Lemann comes from a privileged background but has a deep sense of noblesse oblige, meaning he believes in something the meritocracy doesn't cultivate: community. When I first met him, he was a kid reporter investigating racist Louisiana laws. These days he's committing Columbia Journalism school to excellence and diversity. I saw this when I taught a class there not long ago. The students had varied backgrounds. Some had that thing called "life experience." A young Muslim woman wore a head covering. Lemann has minorities high on his staff. There's a feeling of tolerance and extension of spirit, great liberal values.

The thing I'd fault Lemann for—he was too tactful as a journalist covering the powerful— recommends him for the Harvard presidency. And (again unlike Summers), he knows how to manage people.