_______________WHY CONSERVATIVES HATE CLINTON BY JOE CONASON (07/21/98)
	Joe Conason elucidates clearly what I have felt for ages: that the American left has, over a period of three decades, gleefully slit its own throat over meaningless crap that alienates it from its core base. The great radical organizer Saul Alinsky, right before he died in 1972, saw this coming and tried in vain to stop it. We call it "PC"; he called it "means-and-ends liberalism" -- the attitude of those folks to whom compromise is a dirty word, ignoring the fact that true progress is impossible without it. (Look at Humphrey and how he had to compromise back in 1968, or LBJ in 1964, in order to promote civil rights. Or FDR, a man hated even more than Clinton is today by both the extreme left and right.) As Alinsky said back in '72, the means-and-ends people wind up on their ends without any means -- and the history of the left certainly proves it. -- Tamara Baker Joe Conason's column succeeds only in raising questions about his understanding of the word "progressive." The only sort of "progressive values" that have interested Clinton so far have been the Vernon Jordan kind, whereby corporate executives with slightly left-of-center social views have drinks together and agree that decidedly right-wing economic policies should prevail. If "reactionaries" like George Bush or Bob Dole had ended welfare as we once knew it and replaced it with platitudes, had passed NAFTA and had tried to smuggle in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) under the subterfuge of fast-track trading authority, Democrats of all stripes would have howled, at least long enough to be re-elected. Everything about the president's record should make real progressives extremely wary of what Conason describes as Clinton's willingness to "compromise" on (away?) the environment and labor protection. It is revealing that Conason uses a Hillary-hosted, exclusive, boardroom-style meeting between unnamed members of the DLC and the Economic Policy Institute to illustrate Clinton's attempt to forge an "embryonic and fragile" coalition among Democratic left- and right-wingers. When Clinton speaks directly to the people, as he did recently in a speech to the National Federation of Teachers, he tirelessly praises himself for putting 100,000 new police on the streets and extols school uniforms as a cure for classroom violence -- why, these are "progressive" themes Rudy Giuliani could love. Please, Mr. Conason, if you're going to write editorials like this, change the name of your column to "Moderate Jab." -- Scot Danforth
_______________THE ATTACK JUDGE BY JONATHAN BRODER (07/21/98)
	Conservative U.S. Judge Laurence H. Silberman may choose not to recuse himself from legal judgments regarding President Clinton. He has already shown, though, that he can't be depended on for nonpartisan opinions or even reasonable ones. Silberman's declaration that, by resisting Ken Starr's extremist investigation into a still-alleged sexual relationship between Clinton and a White House intern, the president is "declaring war on the United States" is patently ridiculous. But it is consistent with the hate-filled and over-the-top rhetoric spouted by Republicans since they assumed control of Congress in 1994. While members of the GOP's moderate minority have held their tongues and their noses, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Jesse Helms and their fellow flame-throwers of the radical right have engaged in a shameful war of invective and insult designed to damage the president's standing and legacy. If these people were children, their mothers might thrash them for their disrespectful behavior. Since they're elected officials, however, they seem to believe that they no longer have need to be civil or even sensible. While their performance may please their hard-core constituencies, it reduces the entire American political process to the level of schoolyard name-calling. President Clinton has done much to ensure this country's economic discipline and growth, help middle-class Americans (through minimum-wage increases) and the poor (through hikes in the earned income tax credit), strengthen our educational institutions and cool international tensions. All of this, while Republicans have run around like spoiled, mean-spirited brats, most of their energy spent on belittling Democrats. If conservative officials hope to play any role in this country's future, isn't it time that they shut up and started actually doing something for all of the people (not just the wealthy few) they were elected to represent? -- Jeff Pierce Seattle If there's one good thing about Ken Starr it's that he has highlighted the effect of Reagan-appointed jurists. Unfortunately, it's too late to do anything about it other than not allowing more such judges to be appointed in the future. Laurence Silberman's comments regarding the Clinton administration ("Can it be said that the president of the United States has declared war on the United States?") shouldn't surprise anyone. Again we see yet another Reagan-appointed right-winger with an agenda showing the true impact that the Reagan/Bush years had on the U.S. judicial system. Silberman, once undersecretary of labor in the Nixon administration, gets his views frequently spread by such organizations as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Besides working on the Reagan-Bush campaign and transition team, Silberman is even mentioned as attending a meeting at the L'Enfant Plaza hotel in the fall of 1980 as part of the rumored "October Surprise" effort. Silberman later stated that the Iranians' offers were rejected. Silberman also led the vote that overturned Oliver North's Iran-contra conviction. I'll bet Lawrence Walsh dearly wished that he could have had him recused as another judge, Abner Mikva, was recused for once being a congressman who voted for the original independent counsel law. Yes, it is certainly comforting to know that justice is blind and that Clinton is getting a fair and impartial hearing. -- Bill Faulk St. Paul, Minn.
_______________CENSORSHIP AND SENSIBILITY BY INDA SCHAENEN (07/17/98)
	So, Ms. Schaenen, you are content to have your daughter read "the relevant novels" concerning the Holocaust, but you just can't let her learn about sex? Seems like you buy into the suburban "buy-style" more than you think -- at least the corollary of violence OK, sex bad. I am confident that with a little bravery, you can guide your daughter through the intricacies of this basic human experience. Because if you really trust your little girl, you will learn that she's probably smart enough to handle it, and certainly smart enough to find it on her own -- without the benefit of your guidance. -- Laura Maschal How charming: Inda Schaenen has censored her daughter's reading material and finds it cute when her daughter does the same to her brother. Frankly, I don't see how calling Ms. Frizzle "the strangest teacher in the school" is an insult; "most interesting" just doesn't have the same ring to it. I see no difference between Shaenen's liberal-minded "filtering" of her daughter's pop-culture intake and the strictness of fundamentalists who deny their children views that don't agree with their religion. A parent has the right to exercise some control (that's what "parental discretion advised" warnings are for), but an outright ban of cartoons or the Spice Girls isn't fair. If I remember being 8 years old correctly, it was already pretty easy to see through the hard-sell of sugared cereals or toys. Schaenen's daughter may not be "sarcastic," but she's being denied the opportunity of a good bullsh--t detector. Let her see the commercials, I say, but give her a subscription to MAD magazine too. Finally, Schaenen boasts how she carefully changed the gender of the heroes of her daughter's stories. Now that she has two boys, will she change them back? Or are only female heroes acceptable in Schaenen's world? -- David Platt Reading this piece, I was first amused, then amazed, then appalled. Obviously, thinking parents filter materials and experiences available to children. But the altering of texts? Is that not the literary equivalent of raising children in gated suburbs, far -- and safe -- from the madding crowd? Pedagogical bowdlerization by any other name ... -- Douglas Milburn While I cannot but admire a parent who cares enough to want to guide their child's reading, and who cares enough about her child's mind to allow a bright and beloved daughter the greatest freedom reasonable in choosing what to read, I cannot help but feel that a fundamental mistake has been made. What happens when your daughter is old enough to really connect the de-gendered, sanitized and politically corrected bedtime stories with their real versions? You have not only censored the stories, but essentially lied about them, and done so without telling your child that it has been done, and why. Why would she trust you to be forthright in your versions of any tale in the future? I grant that I take a somewhat extreme reaction to the issue, and one in which you had only the best of intentions; however, an author uses words and images very specifically, to engage the reader in a specific way, to evoke and to present a specific version of an experience. If you think that there is another, perhaps more approachable way to present the tale, fine. But tell your child that. Tell her, "I think the adventure would be more fun for you if this were a girl, because girls can do this too." Don't censor blithely, use it as a discussion point, then it will have more impact, and you won't be faced with an emotional, hormone-driven teenager screaming betrayal down the road. -- Aimee Spencer SALON | July 24, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| THE SECRET LIFE OF A SCANDAL BY STEVE ERICKSON

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.