_______________ SALON MAGAZINE
	When I heard that the president of the United States was recommending a Web site that had links to pornographic sites, articles on "channeling," nasty articles on celebrities, New Age practices and articles of support for himself, gays and communists, naturally I did not believe it. How could the leader of our nation stoop down so low? Well, obviously, one must pay close attention to what the president says. Because just about every depressing thing we hear about him is turning out to be true. Including his association with your magazine. I hope his endorsement/association with your site becomes widespread public knowledge. That way the people of the country can become aware of just how degenerate the so-called leader is. I'm sure the exposure will help your magazine. But then communists, gays, perverts and atheists have a right to their own magazine too. My concern -- as I'm sure any decent parent will share -- is that the president of the United States should not be allowed to corrupt or compromise the children of our country. At least not any further than he has already done or attempted to do. If he has his way our kids will learn how to masturbate in preschool and receive government issued condoms by third grade. Then, I suppose, they will be encouraged to visit Web sites like yours where they can learn how to experiment with sex or try to find out who they were in a previous life and so forth. Now that I have discovered the president's association with your magazine I will believe every dirty thing I hear about him until it is proven otherwise. Apparently, nothing less than the future of my children is at stake. I still can't believe he endorsed your magazine. Wow! What other vile things might he be up to? I don't know, but I'm sure he could find it at your Web site! -- Kerry Fox [Editor's note: Salon magazine is an independent publication and is in no way affiliated with the White House or any other political party.] Thanks so much for fine reporting and for fighting the "good fight" where fairness is concerned. I read the New York Times first thing each morning. Then I check AP Washington & Breaking news on the Drudge Report site (also to see what kind of muck he's publishing as verity). Finally I come to Salon for some balance, which I always seem to find. Thanks for standing up, and standing out! -- J. Antone More and more frequently, I find myself staring at Salon's home page and finding nothing, or very few things, I'm interested in reading. What a shame, because I used to find this magazine entertaining and unique. With the exception of Mothers Who Think, however, all of the most unique, interesting parts of Salon seem to be getting methodically eliminated. While the magazine once contained essays from a variety of writers on diverse subject matter (for instance, the essays loosely grouped under "Media Circus," which included opinions and personal essays often only vaguely related to media issues), this has been traded in favor of more narrow, common categories such as "News" and "Video." How ordinary, and how disappointing. Updates and opinions on news, video, books, TV and technology can be found anywhere. Travel magazines are abundant, even online. What made Salon unique, and what earned it its original readership, was exhibiting the voices of many different writers (not just regular columnists like Courtney Weaver and Camille Paglia) writing thoughtful essays on unique subject matter. While I appreciate your efforts to give fair coverage to the trials and tribulations of Bill Clinton, trying to turn Salon into some sort of online approximation of Time is very disappointing. (By the way, even newsmagazines like Time usually have a category for general essays.) The best thing about Salon used to be that it contained thoughtful, intelligent, creative essays on subjects that we are not already beaten over the head with on a daily basis. Too bad you seem to be giving that up in favor of mediocre pop culture coverage. -- R. Robinson-Smith Bellevue, Wash.
_______________ BUYING FALSE RACIAL PEACE BY JIM SLEEPER (05/05/98)
	Jim Sleeper is right, but even he doesn't go far enough in criticizing affirmative action and judgments based on alleged "race." He should question the legitimacy of "racial" categories. "Hispanic" is used as a "racial" category ("blacks and Hispanics" vs. "whites") and also as a nonracial category ("Hispanic regardless of race"). This contradiction is designed to avoid the embarrassing fact that most Hispanics are racially mixed and, before affirmative action, were identified by the U.S. government as "white" (regardless of whether they had very little if any European ancestry). Cuban-Americans, having most of their origins in Cuba's former middle and upper classes, take great pains to stress their "white" identity. Yet, the son of a "white," middle-class Cuban-American millionaire is considered equally as "oppressed" as the "Indio" son of Mexican-American farm workers or the "mulatta" daughter of Puerto Rican barrio dwellers. If "whites" are as racist as the proponents of affirmative action like to believe, which "Hispanic" do you think is going to benefit the most from affirmative action? We are told by the affirmative action proponents that all "whites" are privileged and able to "blend" into a light-skinned majority, but the poor "people of color" have this dark skin that prevents them from being able to blend and makes them subject to constant racial discrimination. All right, let's take that at face value. Why, then, does affirmative action include the following contradictions: North Africans and people of Middle Eastern origin are defined as "white" regardless of the fact that most of them are dark-skinned and closer to "mulattoes" than the common American image of a "white" person. Why aren't these darker peoples being given the benefits of affirmative action? Quite the contrary. The Detroit News reported on the case of Mostafa Hefny, an Egyptian immigrant who looks perfectly black and is trying to force the government to change his racial category from "white" to "black." It is somehow important to the U.S. government to pretend that North Africans aren't tainted with the blood of the "race" it claims to champion. Hispanics are allowed to benefit from affirmative action while maintaining a "white" social identity. Why shouldn't "Hispanics" be forced to cram themselves into the same racial categories as Anglos of mixed racial descent? Above all, why aren't "white" Hispanics excluded from affirmative action? They are the only people who can have their "white" cake and "minority" benefits too. If "white skin" or Caucasian phenotype is such a great privilege, why are Caucasians of partial black, Asian or American Indian ancestry encouraged to be "minorities" for affirmative action purposes? Personnel managers and college admission officers often jump at the chance to have a "black" or "Asian" student who is indistinguishable from a middle-class white. Shouldn't such people be defined as "white" so the real "people of color" can get ahead? The above criticisms make it clear that affirmative action is discredited on its own terms. -- A.D. Powell
_______________ THE PARTY'S OVER BY DAVID HOROWITZ (05/04/98)
	I don't think I ever heard of David Horowitz back in the late '60s, but like many college students opposed to the Vietnam War, I had plenty of experience with his type: narcissistic ideologues with loud mouths who poisoned public dialogue and made it nearly impossible to raise serious moral and political objections to a tragically misguided foreign policy. It figures that Horowitz, idiot radical turned idiot reactionary, would use the phrase "Dustbin of History" as a title for his unprovoked and unintelligent brutalization of Richard Rorty. As students of intellectual history will recognize, the cliché catches perfectly the hectoring tone of the adolescent Leninist, a tone unchanged in the rhetoric of many a hero of the American Right. These guys are dangerous. They may not be frog marching their comrades through some Maoist catechism anymore, but even in their latest avatar as authoritarian Republicans, they are every bit as intolerant as they ever were and much, much better financed. -- Jim Harrison San Francisco
_______________ THE COWARD BY DAVID CORN (04/27/98)
	The person who should resign over the needle exchange fiasco is Barry McCaffrey, who prefers to base drug policy on lying narcomaniac propaganda instead of solid scientific fact. McCaffrey is a barefaced liar who only makes matters worse with the backward policies he promotes. Needle exchange programs have proved themselves effective in reducing HIV transmission, yet McCaffrey endorses the immorality of condemning 12,000 people to death every year to support a lunatic policy that has failed for 84 straight years. The drug war is the longest losing battle in U.S. history because it is based on a false morality that causes a thousand times more trouble than the "problem" they pretend to address. The drug warriors are responsible for our "drug problems," as McCaffrey's performance on NEPs amply demonstrates. -- Redford Givens San Francisco SALON | May 12, 1998