Molly Ivins, Chechens, etc.

However, a few amendments to Schwartz’s article would help clarify some important issues. He writes that “Yeltsin ordered the Russian army back into Chechnya, and the nightmare resumed,” whereas Vladimir Putin, succeeding Yeltsin as president, “pledged an investigation of the human rights crisis in Chechnya.” Actually, it was Putin who, as prime minister in September 1999, spearheaded the suppressive campaign to restore Russian control of Chechnya, and who rode to the presidency partly on the popularity of his aggressive approach–symbolized by his promise to “rub them out in their outhouses.” Putin’s political reputation is thus inextricably linked to the Chechen war. There are strong incentives for Putin to achieve peace, but also to reject any compromises that suggest Russian weakness–even if they might be prerequisites to a lasting peace.

Second, the widespread criticism of Chechnya’s 2003 constitutional referendum and presidential election deserves greater emphasis. A referendum to decide Chechnya’s future, in which more than 80,000 Russian troops participate–not only through the threat of arms but also through the weight of their votes–hardly represents the Chechen will. This is especially the case when the referendum is on a cryptic proposed constitution barely understandable to voters. A presidential election means nothing when all competition is eliminated through technicalities and political inducements.

Russia, however, billed the referendum as a political solution. It was, instead, a politically expedient ploy by Putin that could very well undermine the credibility of future efforts to establish peace. Such efforts will require resumed dialogue with the Chechen moderates, who are today conflated with the very terrorists they denounce.

NIKHIL I. PATEL

Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC

IVINSIBLE

THANKS TO THE SCRAPBOOK for pointing out that the line I have been using about Arnold Schwarzenegger–“looks like a condom stuffed with walnuts”–comes originally from an Australian journalist, Clive James (Jan. 12). Had I known that, I would certainly have given James credit for the line.

I heard it first in August 2003 at a civil liberties meeting in Vermont and had no idea of its provenance. I have now put the correct credit in my column.

It is disconcerting to be accused of plagiarism when plagiarism never entered your mind.

In fact, this is the second time that this has happened to me, as THE SCRAPBOOK mentioned in its item. The experiences have made me cautious when I find my own work quoted without attribution: I do not assume the borrower is a plagiarist. Some lines just float around in the zeitgeist.

I find the best response is to send a note pointing out where the line originally appeared. This gives the other writer a chance to make the correct attribution. Thank you for providing me with that opportunity in the case of Clive James.

MOLLY IVINS
Austin, TX

SUPER FREAK

CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL’S editorial, “Put the Super Bowl on C-SPAN”(Feb. 16), pronounces, “Shame on Viacom that it disgraced the country in front of hundreds of millions of foreigners watching the Super Bowlfor the first time (including in China). But shame on us if we permit them to do it again.” To which I say, fair enough.

But shame on Viacom then, too, for allowing the flag of the United States to be abused (dare I say, desecrated) in front of millions of Americans. You see, prior to Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction,” the rock star Kid Rock draped himself ingloriously in the American flag as part of his half-time show act.

But Kid Rock’s childish actions were in plain violation to the U.S. Flag Code, which instructs that “the flag should never be used as wearing apparel. . . .”

Who will enforce this statute in light of Kid Rock’s embarrassing display?

C.T. GRUMBINE

Nottingham, MD