I enjoyed your article on the move of the Braves' single-A team from Macon to Rome, ("Macon tracks," July 31). However, I think you just barely touched on the true effect a minor-league team can have on a small city.
You're right that there's not a huge economic windfall for anyone in this move, except possibly the Braves organization. The city of Rome is not going to make a ton of money. There's not going to be a sudden influx of jobs. Most businesses are not going to notice any benefits of having a team at all. But it will make a difference for the fans. As the Macon PR department keeps trying to remind us, baseball is "magic." Despite the major-league baseball shenanigans, baseball has a quality that no other sport can match. And minor-league ball only amplifies that feeling. You're closer to the action on the field, closer to the players and their lives, and closer to your own youth.
I feel sorry for the people of Macon who have supported their team for 12 seasons and felt this "magic" firsthand. But minor-league baseball is about to claim the hearts of a new city.
-- Michael McHenry, www.bravesreport.com, Atlanta
Sad, but true
Scott Henry: Loved your story about Bob Barr and John Linder ("Right-wing smackdown," July 24). It was hilarious and terribly sad at the same time. Most of all, it was all true.
-- David Vogel, Wichita, Kan.
(In response to "Right-wing smackdown," July 24): In their respective advertisements, Roger Kahn is scaring seniors about Buddy Darden's budget votes from a decade ago, while Cynthia McKinney is comparing Denise Majette to police officers that beat arrestees.
With such competition in the mudslinging department, I expected that the cover story about the Barr-Linder race would certainly contain some juicy rhetoric.
So where was the mudslinging? Linder calls Barr divisive and negative, while Barr thinks Linder is boring and petty. Big whoop. By campaign standards, that's pretty mild, and is hardly cover story material. In fact, Scott Henry slings more mud at the candidates than they have themselves, calling them everything from "extreme" to "ultra-partisan" to "kooky."
Either Mr. Henry attempted to create mudslinging mountains from molehills, or he simply neglected to include any of the combative language he promised. In either case, I suggest Mr. Henry's next cover story should have some real meat to it, rather than being merely an inflated account of his opinions of candidates.
-- Loren Collins, Stone Mountain
Laughing all the way
Ken Edelstein: I enjoyed your column, "In defense of our president" (News & Views, July 24). It was informative and humorous. I practically laughed through every paragraph, but inside, I'm sad that these things are taking place and nothing can be done about it.
-- Ida Richardson, Norcross
Scrutinizing the argument
Even though there's know way in hell you'll print this, I just had to do it. I must say I enjoyed Ken Edelstein's "In Defense of our President" piece (News & Views, July 24). I'm always amused at how liberals must distort facts and spout half-truths due to their inability to make an argument stand up to scrutiny. For the sake of brevity, I'll point out only a few gems from his Mr. Edelstein's most recent diatribe.
"Secret meetings" between Vice President Dick Cheney and energy executives, and the implication was that all of the information from them should be made public. Never mind the fact that if such a thing happened, "off-the-record" comments to actually assist in the national policy-making process would cease. Is Mr. Edelstein privy to the machinations required in this aspect of government? I seriously doubt it, but these "secret meetings" sound fishy enough to make nothing sound like something, for sure.
Next we have the question of President Bush's Harken stock, in which it is noted that Bush sold his shares prior to the stock plummeting. What Mr. Edelstein conveniently fails to mention is that the same stock proceeded to double in price from where Bush sold it around a year later. Hardly a smoking gun, then, is it?
Along the same lines, CL readers are told, "Bush reported the sale eight months late." True enough, but the original disclosure of intent to sell the stock was made in a timely fashion, in full accordance with the law. The report to which Mr. Edelstein refers is known as a formality in the industry, as the pertinent information was available to investors when necessary.
I might also add that one could fit a company called Global Crossing in with WorldCom and Martha Stewart when discussing corruption, but of course we won't get that from a liberal like Mr. Edelstein. Why, you ask? Because Global Crossing was the company that Democratic Chairman Terry McCauliff turned $100K into $18.5 million at the expense of fellow shareholders! But what can you expect from someone who has the level of shameless gall to imply that the Bush administration is the sleaziest "since Richard Nixon's." Kind of makes one wonder how Mr. Edelstein can remember back to the '70s if he has no recollections of the years 1992-2000!
-- Garrett Phillips, Atlanta