_______________REPRESSED MEMORY SYNDROME BY DAVID HOROWITZ (08/31/98)
	All right, I'm used to some weird assertions from David Horowitz. I'm used to his calling contra death squads "freedom fighters" and overlooking the slaughter of Buddhists by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam right up until the day Saigon fell. But in his latest bizarre screed, he makes a numeric assertion that should be easy to back up, if he merely cited his sources: that more Vietnamese were killed by the Communist Vietnamese government in its first three years than died in the 13 years of war prior. This is patently hogwash, and I've been through several almanacs and histories trying to give Horowitz the benefit of the doubt. I know that being a Reagan apologist pays better than being on old New Lefty (and willing right-wing chicks now outnumber tasty little hippie kittens for a duffer on the make), but blatant inaccuracy is simply déclassé. Get caustic about Pol Pot's genocide until the cows come home (oops -- he was considered an ally by the Reagan White House, wasn't he?), but don't bother making up sins for which the Vietnamese government must atone. They might get upset and miss a stitch on your Nikes. -- Michael Treece Browsed through "Radical Son" this weekend. Sorry, too many accusations made to read the entire book. One comes away amazed that Mr. Horowitz is apparently the only member of the old "New Left" who had a conscience. I guess when it comes to vilifying very large segments of our population, Mr. Horowitz has no peer. Generally, I no longer bother to read the pieces by Mr. Horowitz that appear in Salon magazine. If you have read one, you have read them all: Lefties = bad; Righties = good. Sort of a pinhead's view of American politics. -- John J. Dougherty Bensalem, Pa. David Horowitz's constant "I was right; they were wrong" tirades wouldn't be half as annoying if it weren't for this: Horowitz is the one always wrong. Along with Cintra Wilson, he's your most tiresome blowhard excuse for a columnist. --D. Abston
_______________DAYS OF RAGE (CONT.) STEPHEN TALBOT (09/01/98)
	As Talbot implies, the dissonance between being 19 or being 29 years old in 1968 makes all the difference in this argument. Talbot's POV is clearly that of a child who mostly missed the impact of the postwar '50s on the development of his personal intellect. For individuals of the group Talbot's essay truly speaks of/to, the assassination of the president was the birth of life outside the neighborhood, the beginning of a journey into the '60s. A mind like Horowitz's was well into his own intellectual maturity by the time of that assassination. The war and the draft were frontal challenges to becoming a man and a member of society to a 19-year-old. To a 29-year-old, the draft could only have been an additional rancid slab on the overburdened platter of life. -- Stephen Bickford Sparks, Md.
_______________MONICAGATE: THE MOVIE BY TIM CAVANAUGH (08/31/98)
	I'm writing to question your choice of Syd Field for your Monica & Bill story. Syd Field is not a working screenwriter. As far as I know, he has no major credits to speak of. He makes his living as a "script guru," and as such, occasionally serves as a "consultant" for the studios. Script gurus earn their living exploiting aspiring screenwriters by peddling formula in books and "seminars," and script consultants earn their living making working screenwriters miserable by giving studio execs formula to ram down their throats in notes meetings. The three-act paradigm you credit Field with creating was actually devised a little earlier -- in a book called the Poetics, by Aristotle. As far as I know, there were none of these gurus around during any of the Golden Ages of Hollywood (the '30s, the '60s, the '70s, take your pick) and the movies were certainly none the worse for their absence. I don't begrudge Field a right to make a living any way he can, but I do think it's a shame to ask for his take when I would have loved to see what some real writers -- Paul Attanasio, Scott Frank, Callie Khouri, Robin Swicord -- would have done with the material. -- David Scarpa
_______________SHUNNING AND SHAMING BY FIONA MORGAN (08/28/98)
	I am writing in response to Fiona Morgan's article about David Cash, his so-called "role" in the murder of Sherrice Iverson and the calls that are being made to expel him from UC-Berkeley. I found Morgan's parroting of the non-charges against Cash personally offensive and an insult to my intelligence as an informed citizen. Frankly, I am sick to death of the "victim's rights" crowd and their constant braying about the supposed need for more and more laws to vindicate those who have crimes committed against them. David Cash did not -- repeat, did NOT -- have anything to do with Iverson's death. He was there but left the scene before any actual violence was committed. He has stated for the record that he didn't think anything was wrong, and that should be the end of it. Now, because of lobbying on behalf of Iverson's family, we here in California are faced with the prospect of some ludicrous "Good Samaritan" law that will make it a crime not to intervene to stop a crime. I would ask the Iverson family to please take their grief off my civil rights. -- Robert Anderson SALON | Sept. 3, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| SHUNNING AND SHAMING BY FIONA MORGAN

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.