0.cached.png
By Newsweek Editors
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Verdict: Greed Is Not Good Responding to our cover story on the recent wave of job layoffs, many readers pointed a finger at corporate America. "Your article once again exposed how brutal some American managers can be and how the word 'loyalty' is obsolete in the modern business world," wrote one. Another declared, "You can't have a healthy society or sustainable economic stability unless working people get a fair shake--too bad greed got in the way." We also heard from a woman who lost her job but has found satisfying work: "I wish I could tell people who've been laid off that there is more to life than 12-hour workdays in which we sacrificed our personal lives for the corporate good." Don't Call Us, We Won't Call You I feel as if my recent life is emblazoned on your Feb. 5 cover, which asks, "How Safe Is Your Job?" (BUSINESS). Not very, actually. I was laid off three times in 2000--a new record, even for me.
Risa E. Bernstein
Reston, VA.
I was laid off from Lucent Technologies last month and received a nice package. The fly in this ointment was that I'm 59 and certainly past my prime in terms of new job choices. But I was determined to keep looking for that fun opportunity. An online posting site put me in touch with a local headhunter, who in turn found me an ideal position. Good salary, a lot of stock options, great people and a chance to dive in from the beginning and help build a new, successful company. So keep faith in yourself. Don't panic. Don't spend your package money or that 401(k) or take the first job offer that comes along. If a silver-haired grandmother can land a terrific new job in a few months, so can you!
Laurie Bartholomew
Harleysville, PA.
When a large corporation announces a 15 percent downsizing of its labor force, wouldn't it be fair to cut the salaries of the company executives by the same percentage?
Raymond E. Gibson
Newport, R.I.
Read More on News
The Tortoise Torture I actually read Geoffrey Cowley's piece "Going Super Slow" (SOCIETY, Feb. 5) on the StairMaster, before starting my usual modest weight-lifting regimen. The concepts in the article appealed to me, so I applied them to my workout that day. All I can say is "Ouch!" A "tolerance for deep muscular burn" was a drastic understatement. I set the weight at between 50 and 60 percent of my usual routine, and by the fourth or fifth rep of every exercise my body was shaking and my muscles were burning more than when I do three sets of 10 at full speed with twice the weight. I also noticed that the targeted muscle groups for each exercise seemed to be hit much harder by going very slowly. It was a great workout, and I went home feeling wonderfully wobbly. Going Super Slow will become part of my routine, but even though my heart rate was up a bit during the lifting, it will still be a complement to cardio work, not a replacement.
Thomas Vance
Maple Valley, Wash.
While no one disputes the importance of weight training, it is misleading for proponents of the Super Slow technique to suggest that cardiovascular exercise is anything less than absolutely essential. Aerobic activity is critical to general wellness, especially in the obese society we live in.
Emily Gilbert
Atlanta, GA.
A Financial Incentive to Learn? When I read the Harvard admissions officer's suggestion that black students be paid for grades ("Paying Kids to Study? It's Not a Crazy Idea," MY TURN, Feb. 5), I winced. As a high-school English and drama teacher, I am sickened by the schism race creates, and this arrangement would widen the gap. My poor white students would have a very hard time understanding how much more difficult it is to be poor and black than poor and white (though all reasonable people conclude that the former is still the toughest). The teacher in me wants the world to stop putting dollar signs in front of everything and help students understand that nothing is more powerful or wonderful than knowledge. Just ask the black student, son of a single mother, who recently called to tell me that he is a senior at the University of Michigan and interviewing at medical schools. He got through a tough grind because he learned the value of delayed gratification, something that money for grades would destroy.
Lyla Fox
Kalamazoo, Mich.
As a 19-year-old black student, I have to disagree with David L. Evans's shortsighted MY TURN. In a society where most kids already grow up with a ridiculously high sense of entitlement, his "monetary reward for academic excellence" can only further turn off students to the value of hard work. Now, I'm not high and mighty enough to say that in a capitalist society hard work shouldn't be rewarded with a fair amount of money, but to imply that the only motivator for black students is money is an insult and will only turn academia into another jockocracy where material rewards are the sole form of self-satisfaction.
Thomas Florence
Norcross, GA.
In Favor of Starving Artists In his Feb. 5 column " 'Privileging' Postmodernism" (THE LAST WORD), George F. Will takes an appropriate shot at our eagerness to find intellectual meaning in well-placed duct tape. But to suggest that "government should subsidize nothing contemporary--no art or artist of the moment, only canonical works... that have been ratified by the test of time" seems to miss the point that without financial support, there would be no artistic canon to preserve. History is overflowing with stories of unappreciated geniuses whose merit was not recognized until long after their periods of productivity. Artists must be supported as an act of faith, not because their immortality is already guaranteed.
Judith Kellock
Jackson Heights, N.Y.
Two Producers Have Their Say We wish to clarify a misimpression created by a bracketed comment in a NEWSWEEK question asked during its producers' round-table discussion ("Pass Me an Oscar," ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT, Feb. 5) about why Ed Zwick didn't speak onstage after "Shakespeare in Love" won the 1998 best-picture Oscar. It was misleading to state that "Zwick was a producer on the movie, but Miramax's Harvey Weinstein gave the acceptance speech." Harvey was onstage not as Miramax's chairman but as an "SIL" producer. Harvey brought "SIL" to Miramax from Universal as a film that he would produce, later bringing David Parfitt and Donna Gigliotti in as his partners. Ed developed the script at Universal and wanted to direct it, but Harvey hired director John Madden. Ed concurrently directed another project and to our knowledge never visited the "SIL" set. There was no "mugging" on the Academy stage (as Ed suggested); rather, Ed was acknowledged by his coproducers for contributing to the film's development. The clock ran out and music played during Harvey's remarks (he spoke after Donna and David), leaving no speaking opportunity for Ed or Marc Norman, who was also onstage. The evening's greatest regret was not taking John Madden onstage with us, where we thanked everyone--including Ed--who made "SIL" possible.
David Parfitt and Harvey Weinstein
New York, N.Y.
I worked for five years to make "The Cider House Rules" into a film, and I am enormously proud of the outcome. To say, in your producers' round-table discussion, that the film "would not have been nominated [for an Academy Award] had it not been for Miramax's [marketing] campaign" is cynical and plainly wrong. It was Miramax's job to create awareness for our film. They asked filmgoers and Academy members (who vote for the nominees and awards) to sit up and take notice of our film. The fact that Miramax did its job extremely well does not mean that it should get credit for the audience's response to the film, or for the awards it received. Marketers can't make you like a film; they can only ask you to see it.
Richard Gladstein, Producer, 'The Cider House Rules'
Los Angeles, Calif.
Correction In our Feb. 19 cover story, "Tax Cuts & You," a chart misstated how President Bush's proposed tax cut would affect a married couple with two children and a combined annual income of $20,000. The chart was based on data provided by the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche, which subsequently corrected its initial analysis. The firm now says the couple would actually realize no tax savings--not the $168 that appeared in the chart.
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines