This article would be far better if a little legwork didn't turn up the fact that Mr. Scherer is stretching the truth.

Nowhere does the OED suggest that "macaca" is 'often spelled "macaco" or "macaque[.]"' Indeed, it doesn't even suggest that macaca is an alternate spelling of either term (both of which have entries). The etymology given by Mr. Scherer is for macaco, which does have the alternate form makaku. But the OED is silent on macaca. (These from the OED, 2nd. Ed., online version.) At best, macaca is named as the genus of the macaque, but the two are not interchangeable terms, nor is there an example of the genus used on its own.

As for the Oxford Spanish Dictionary, I only have online access to the Concise edition. Nevertheless, "macaca" makes no appearance in that good tome. Mr. Scherer has merely copied the entry for "macaco." (Perhaps the full edition lists "macaca" as an alternate spelling, but that is what would be required for "In the Oxford Spanish Dictionary, "macaco" and "macaca" carry the colloquial meaning. . ." not be be wholly disingenuous.)

Now, maybe Mr. Scherer's argument is that these two words are so similar as to be identical. Or maybe he thinks that the genus of a common name is the same as the common name. But whatever the case, I can find no record of anyone using the genus of the species alone as a racial epithet, certainly not in any dictionary. He's simply being disingenuous in using the OED to imply that this is a "centuries old" usage.

With regards to my prior letter of August 26th, the Oxford Spanish Dictionary does list "macaca" as a word, the feminine form of "macaco." Spanish not being a language in which I'm fluent, I missed this, and Mr. Scherer has corrected me, for which I thank him.

My complaint about the OED, however, remains: the entry described is for "macaco," and "macaca" is mentioned only as the genus of the macaque. (The old form, "macacus," also has its own entry, and macaca is thus listed as a scientific term.) The claim that "macaca" is often spelled "macaco" or "macaque" is not supported by the OED, unless one wishes to claim that the genus of a species is often spelled using the common name. (In which case, "turdus" is often spelled "thrush," among other amusing possibilities.) I cannot believe that most Salon readers, upon reading this piece, would have expected to go to the OED and find not only that "macaca" did not have an entry, but that it wasn't listed as an alternate spelling of any word given in the piece.

I am so sick and tired of the media, including the so-called, alternative media spending enormous amounts of time and space concentrating on style issues instead of the substance of a candidate's stand on the issues that mean something.

I don't know George Allen or Jim Webb, for that matter. My introduction to Mr. Allen, is based on some off-the-cuff remarks, admittedly distasteful, made at a stump speech. For this the media wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Candidates of all stripes and allegiances have made remarks, I'm absolutely certain they neither meant to make, or have overheard in any forum. It's the nature of the beast, for human beings to say all manner of stupid things in various situations and under a multitude of circumstances. Poorly made jokes get caught on film or audio tape and the media blows them way out of proportion, to the point that some politicians have had to resign high level posts or even their jobs over "slips of the tongue". This is absolutely ridiculous and in some cases have cost this country good candidates or office-holders.

It is high time, we, as citizens of this country were given facts to ponder about our politicians -- their stands on issues, their voting records, and serious information to allow us to make good or better decisions on who to vote for and who to vote against. Unless a potential voter digs around things such as the Congressional Record, thomas.gov and other sites with pertinent information, all we get are sound bites and furor over a candidate's looks, manner of speech, ancient history such as George Allen's behavior as a teenager in high school and college and other information of no meaningful consequence. How are we, as American's, supposed to sus out a candidate's potential as a law maker or governor, if we aren't given FACTS, instead of trivial comments made at the wrong time, wrong place or in front of some "lucky" reporter who feeds us this junk as if it really matters?

In the last presidential election we had a choice between the devil we knew and a pseudo-intellectual who couldn't get his message across to the average American to save his life. I literally prayed for the Democrats to run an outstanding and better candidate to beat George W. Bush, and instead, we got John Kerry, a man who the Democratic National Committee thought could win on his resemblance to JFK (same initials, same state). My disappointment was palpable and so was my son's, who was going to be voting for the very first time. We poured over news stories, web sites and all manner of documentation on Kerry, hoping to find a shred of evidence that he could and should win. Much to our true dismay, all we got was yet another waffler who couldn't stand up to the current president and vote against a war he, supposedly, knew was wrong. He voted for going to war with Iraq and then basically said "Oops, I made a mistake." His credibility was further shattered by having a so-called plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq in the next four years -- kinda the same as Bush.

When will either party stop selecting and backing candidates who look good, and give us real choices? We need men and women who have real convictions and who are willing to stand by them, rather than going with the flow and then backsliding when the going gets tough. ENOUGH ALREADY.