_______________CLINTON'S AMEN CHORUS BY DAVID HOROWITZ (10/12/98)
	David Horowitz's take on this subject misses the mark even more widely than Toni Morrison's and Julian Bond's. It is a surprise to me that in trying to define the difference between the reactions of the races, everyone seems to ignore the obvious: For centuries, white people have always felt it is their right, indeed their duty, to sit in judgment on other people's behavior. We are and have always been blessed, or cursed, depending on your definition, with the unassailable certainty that we are the only true arbiters of correct moral conduct and social behavior, and Lord help those who fall from the righteous path as we've defined it. Whether we were sending missionaries to convert the pagans, buying and selling slave labor or hunting for witches in Salem, we have done so fortified by the justification of our own moral superiority and bolstered by the Christian beliefs from which that superiority stems. And while I am assuming that, like me, Horowitz is a Jew, he has assimilated that mind-set and represents perfectly the smug, sanctimonious and judgmental attitudes of so many white Christians who bask in the glow of their own righteousness. If you don't believe me, I have just two words to say to you: Bill Bennett. African-Americans, people of color, gay Americans and a large section of the Jewish community see the world from an entirely different place. Having been the object of relentless persecution, religious and racial discrimination and socially sanctioned intolerance, we are less likely to inflict our moral judgments on others and more likely to view their moral lapses with compassion and empathy. Horowitz and Bennett and others like them may view those of us who do not share their outrage over the Clinton scandal as misguided, morally bankrupt or even intellectually inferior, but I believe that it is really more a question of how you see your place in the world. Do you define yourself as morally superior to everyone else, or do you see yourself as undeniably human? -- Carole Simon Mills San Anselmo, Calif. Mr. Horowitz is now a spokesman for black Americans? I don't think so. But columnist Bill Maxwell of the St. Petersburg Times most assuredly is, and here are just a few of the points he made in an editorial earlier this week on this very same subject. President Clinton has appointed more blacks to Cabinet and other posts than any other president we have ever had. Thirteen percent of his appointments are black. President Clinton cares about blacks without being patronizing, and he understands that they are genuine underdogs, victims of racism. He obviously feels a moral obligation to set matters right for those whom his own race has abused and still abuses. They see President Clinton as an ally in a society hostile to them. How have blacks fared under recent Republican presidents? Nixon shunned them. Ford did not register either way. Reagan despised blacks. Bush, bowing to instinct and pressure, ignored them. Clinton's peccadilloes are less reprehensible than the condemnation and bigotry of self-righteous whites for whom discrimination is a natural part of daily life. African-Americans, then, do not need lectures on character and principle from Clinton haters, who are dismayed by black support of the president. Blacks are standing by their man, a person who has been their genuine friend. -- Helen Cartwright Dunsmuir, Calif. I was both enlightened and amazed at your publication of David Horowitz's piece on Clinton and his relationship with African-Americans: enlightened by its hard-hitting analysis and amazed that Salon published it. Are we trying to divert the left-wing mouthpiece charges that arose from the Henry Hyde fiasco, by any chance? -- Steve Stennes Blacks in this country support Bill Clinton in much the same way they supported O.J. Simpson. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, their loyalty supersedes the facts. Their denial of the truth is based in their adherence to a personality. -- Dan Fite Nashville
_______________HEDGING THEIR BUTTS BY HEATHER CHAPLIN (10/09/98)
	That was a great article describing, if not exactly what a hedge fund is, the environment surrounding one. However, I got to the bottom of the article and was left hanging. There was no analysis of the system, the mechanics, the pulleys and levers and what they imply, besides "the rich get richer." Come on! Show a little brain. Glaringly absent was the implication of the bailout that one hedge fund, irresponsibly run, could wipe out the world's economy. I think the global economy is a fascinating story for you to cover, one you could unmask if you really wanted to. -- J.S. Popovits While I realize that Salon is not exactly cutting edge on the money front, the piece by Heather Chaplin on Hedge Funds was really sophomoric. Why complain about something if you really don't understand it? Heck, my neighborhood bookie has a better understanding of risk than the clowns that ran Long-Term Capital Management, but that doesn't excuse somebody who is supposed to write about it from making some cogent observations. Leverage is what killed LCTM, not the speculation -- and that leverage has wormed its way into everyday life in astonishing quantities. How many readers have fully mortgaged lifestyles -- i.e., no equity in declining value assets, 125 percent mortgages, high credit card balances, no liquid savings, total dependence on single company 401Ks? The lack of understanding of the vulnerability of everyone to a general decline in value allows the writer to put an "oh, well, the rich and the big guys are the only one allowed to play here, so does it really matter ..." spin on what may yet evolve into a global and local crisis of epic proportions. After all, are you going to send that payment for that big SUV parked in front of that big house in the burbs if you are underwater on both of them, and you might be unemployed next month to boot? Obviously the author needs to understand Herstadt risk, and why the Fed pushed the creditors into the bailout, and the resultant surges still propagating through the system -- rather than the puerile assertion "Of course, nobody knows exactly what would have happened if Long-Term Capital had been allowed to fail -- except a lot of very rich people would have lost a lot of money." Some of us in the profession have long understood the fragility and folly of our current system. In the future, I expect better from Salon, or I will just start ignoring this column. -- Allen Malanowskis
_______________UNDER THE MOON AT ANGKOR THOM BY KARIN MULLER (10/12/98)
	Your wandering reporter thinks she has seen Muslim mosques in Cambodia, and then reports that there is a huge fresco on the western wall of Angkor Wat. I realize that fact-checking is passé, but you could explain to her the difference between Islam and Buddhism and then that between fresco and sculptured stone. Great story, but those aren't the only details that make me wonder if she made it up out of a guidebook rather than going there herself. -- J.J. O'Donnell SALON | Oct. 14, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| CREEPS ON CAMPUS BY DAWN MacKEEN

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.