As Frank Rich seemed to point out, Frey is symptomatic of our current cultural malaise regarding reality and fantasy. To see him called up short in front of a national audience was appropriate and unusual. More of this could only be good, I think.

Before seeing this show, I had nothing but contempt for Frey. But seeing him face the music changed my opinion of him. He seemed contrite in a sincere way. He withstood withering attacks without flinching and without lashing back. And yes, there were moments when he was still evasive and slippery. Not to mention the fact that he only had to remind himself of the fortune he has made from his sham of a book. But in the end what he did - taking the scorn and criticism directly - was gutsy, and surely very difficult.

By contrast, some of the commentary from the guests - especially the journalism professor sitting in the front row - was cheap, opportunistic, and reeked of egotism. Odd as it sounds, if I were giving points for integrity, Frey would definitely rank above some of these guests.

It seems to me that this entire debate (?) is rooted in a cynical joke, and the joke is on those of us who have bought into it. I'm skeptical that Steinhorn really deeply believes his own thesis. Can you imagine a more ingenious, provocative marketing device than claiming that the bobos are actually more heroic and relevant than their parents? How many people will lap this up ($$$$) because (a) they will SO much love to hear their own praises sung, or (b) they are so incensed by the thesis that they can't stay away from it?

Implicit here is what many have already pointed out - that generational comparison is very likely a straw man to begin with. The remarkable thing is that it took so long for someone to package it in this particular fashion.

Lee Nichol

...this is not O'Hehir's finest moment. Overwrought (not just by intention) and too often sophomoric. The piece has the feeling of a half-baked idea that went to press because time had run out. As a piece of writing it just doesn't hold together well, unlike most of O'Hehir's previous reviews. It probably should never have run.

But by far the most interesting thing here is the reader response. The snide, hateful, reactionary responses are cut from the same cloth as Coulter, O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Old saying goes: "You become what you hate."

If this is how liberals (among whom i count myself) react to self-criticism, it speaks poorly of our intellectual capital, not to mention our emotional stability. Very likely, this is why George Bush is in the White House, not once, but twice.

Lee Nichol

Salon is good at presenting news, or what we could think of as "current history" (today's news will be tomorrow's history). This is obviously why many readers go to Salon.

But underlying - and often tacitly driving - our human history, is natural history, of which coyote evolution and migration is a part. Now more than ever, if we are to survive and thrive as a species, we need to understand that these two histories are one fabric and deeply affect one another. Not fluff - rather, intelligent, timely reporting.

One quibble. I have lived in one place or another between Albuquerque and Los Angeles for the past thirty years. I can say for sure that western coyotes hunt in packs - I have seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears - as have innumerable others out this way. This is not to say that they are not also solitary - that is obviously true as well. But it's not an either-or situation, as academics would have us believe.

Some years ago in Whole Earth Review there was an essay by Ivan Illich entitled "Silence is a Commons". Part of his argument was that in shared public spaces (the "commons" of the title) we are entitled to expect a reasonable amount of quiet, if not silence. It goes without saying that in many public spaces there will be a spectrum of noisiness, from energetic creative social buzz to cacophony. In part because of this, Illich argued for recognizing the value of quiet public spaces (by which he did not mean libraries).

I think Illich's nightmare scenario - the one which he was urging us to sidestep - has come true, and nowhere more so than in airports. This scenario is one in which a critical mass of the populace has lost, or has never known, any sense of public quiet. To even wish for it, much less to ask for it, is implicitly absurd in this context. Nonetheless, it is heartening to read the many letters (from the "silent majority"?) expressing a desire for some version of a quiet commons.

Personally I have exhausted myself with resentment of boorish cell phone users in airports; the wave is too big too fight, and I have had to acclimate internally to this fact. But the thought of allowing these infernal little devices (I have one) to be used on flights is genuinely depressing. I remember when this idea was first broached, public sentiment was considerably against it - yet the idea still has legs.

Here in Albuquerque we had a beautiful little airport - friendly, open, with colorful local concessions and no chains. Then the airport commission had a gem of an idea - open the concessions to the highest bidder! There was stiff public oppostion to this, but to no avail. Selling the wall space for advertising came next. And who is making these decisions? A very small handful of city councilors and bureaucrats who, alas, are more concerned with commerce than commons. It is here, city by city, where any of the changes Smith proposes will be set in motion.