You Yankee heathens still look down your long noses at us Southerners, and now you've gone too far! You sent one of your peddlers of paganism down here, infiltrated our midst, just like Judas, and then not only betrayed one of our own sacred cows but in general just blasted the whole state of Alabama and the Southland.
Frank Deford's article on The Bear, etc., was the most ungodly piece this man of God has ever laid eyes on. Yes, it hurt the South and Alabama, but even more than that, it revealed the true prejudice that resides in the arrogant hearts of a few die-hard Yankees.
THE REV. RICH TEETERS
Faith Chapel of Huffman
P.S. The South will rise again, and when we do, the first thing we'll burn is the Time-Life Building in Rockefeller Center.
We don't consider Bear Bryant a god, but we do consider him one of the alltime great football coaches. Frank Deford evidently interviewed a couple of illiterate, boorish people—"Birds of a feather..."—but he didn't interview the average person from Alabama or his article wouldn't have been so anti-Bryant and anti-Alabama. If my husband renews his subscription to SI, he will do so from his allowance, not from our general bill-paying fund.
TOMMIE B. LEWIS
Please cancel my subscription as of the Nov. 23 issue. The article about Paul Bryant by Frank Deford is the most vilifying and insulting piece of garbage I've ever read.
REX LIVINGSTON WEBB
There's one thing Frank Deford forgot on his trip through the South that, unfortunately, Sherman didn't: matches.
VIEWS FROM THE EPA
SI has done a number on the Environmental Protection Agency (SCORECARD, Nov. 16). But this time the magazine must be charged with an error. In explaining EPA policy on fighting pollution through "nonconfrontational" methods, SI says that a certain paint company—with whom the EPA negotiated a cleanup settlement in California—was really pushed into action by a threatened California lawsuit. This implies that EPA's three months of negotiation were not a factor in the settlement. This is incorrect.
When negotiating with industrial polluters, EPA always reserves the right to take the company to court to secure cleanup. However, by not doing so in this California case, the EPA saved American taxpayers thousands of dollars in court costs, and cleanup efforts began at least a year earlier than they would have if normal court procedures had ensued.
Since SI's editorial appeared, EPA has made two other "nonconfrontational" agreements on cleanup sites where industry will pick up the tab and again save much time and money for everyone. That's three agreements in six weeks—a pretty good score for the President's EPA team.
JOHN BYRON NELSON III
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
? SI disagrees. In the case of the paint company, the lawsuit—which, as SI reported, was brought by the California Department of Health Services—wasn't merely "threatened." The paint company was dropped from the suit only after it agreed to aid in the cleanup. Moreover, SI never implied that the EPA's negotiations weren't a factor in the settlement, but argued that "moral suasion alone" wasn't the determining factor in reaching a solution, because a lawsuit had been filed. SI noted that the EPA retains the right to take companies to court to secure cleanup, but opined that a threat to do so had little credibility coming from a "nonconfrontational" agency. More important, the American taxpayers have not necessarily been saved their thousands of dollars in court costs and cleanup efforts in California. The paint company acted alone in reaching a settlement; some 36 other individuals and corporations notified as "responsible" by the EPA didn't respond. The EPA's enforcement division says its investigation is ongoing.—ED.