_______________ SALON'S CLINTON CRISIS COVERAGE (01/21/98-04/20/98)
	I love the way some Salon columnists change their "spin" on reality, as needed, to support their desperate attempts to defend the Clintons and attack his accusers. So, here we go with an article attacking the "payments" to Hale: Hale's testimony was instrumental in helping Starr win criminal convictions against James Guy Tucker, then governor of Arkansas, and James and Susan McDougal. In other words, these convictions are worthless and unjust, political revenge based on Hale's lies. OK, there's that version of reality. Now we move on to a piece attacking Starr: Assuming that Starr's prosecutors at that trial believed any of Hale's own testimony, they appear to be the only courtroom observers who did -- contrary to how the national press has assessed Hale's contribution to the case. Jurors unanimously told reporters they hadn't believed a word Hale said against the president. So, now we're told that Hale's testimony was completely discounted by basically everyone watching it! Hmm, so how can it be both "instrumental" in the convictions, and also not believed by just about anyone watching, all at the same time? Well, I guess some Clinton defenders are almost as agile at leaping between whichever reality is most convenient (in this case, to the particular piece of mud they are trying to throw at any given instant) as the person they're trying to cover for. How nice it is not to have to put up with little things like a consistent view of reality and intellectual honesty. I suppose one could reply that the jurors limited their disbelief of Hale to matters relating to his charges against Clinton, and perhaps they did rely on him in convicting the others. This is a valid response, but at the same time, the quotation above doesn't say they believed anything else he said and the jurors clearly had a lot of skepticism about Hale, and I think it's therefore reasonable to conclude that they had some logical reason (and evidence) for not concluding that anything he said related to the charges against the defendants was a portrayal of a reality that didn't happen. (I'm assuming the large amount of contemporaneous documentary evidence was what they relied on, but that's a different question.) I mean, you can't have it both ways: Either they were hopelessly gullible -- in which case, why did they disbelieve some of Hale's charges. Or they were careful and discriminating -- in which case the convictions were reasonable. In a similar vein, one can't both claim that nobody (including the jury) believed Hale, and also claim that he was "instrumental" in the convictions. A nice trick, and one the writers no doubt hope one won't catch. But we're not all that stupid or gullible. Not that I believe everything Hale (who's a convicted fraud and perjurer) says, but it's sad to see a supposedly thoughtful magazine like Salon allowing this degree of intellectual shabbiness to tarnish its pages. -- Noel Chiappa It is doubtful that Ken Starr was motivated to give up a comfortable sinecure at Pepperdine University because he suddenly became aware that accepting a post paid for by millionaire Clinton-hater Richard Scaife created a conflict of interest. Mr. Starr has already shown the ability to ignore conflicts so egregious that they would stop an ordinary attorney dead in his tracks. The reason for Mr. Starr's sudden conversion is his desperate need to retain control of the investigation of payments funneled to "model witness" David Hale, the convicted con man whose Whitewater testimony has proven so flexible and useful to Mr. Starr. Now that career Justice Department officials are beginning to mutter about subordination of perjury, Mr. Starr cannot afford to let control of the investigation fall into the hands of professional prosecutors. Paul Gottlieb East Brunswick, N.J. Slowly but surely you are reeling him in. Like some mythological battle Salon is going to land the big one. Starr must be quelled. The utter malevolent absurdity of Starr telling Justice that he will handle the investigation of David Hale boggles the mind. But far worse is the holier then thou mantle of ALL THAT IS RIGHT that he flouts so piously. I believe though that it is all finally coming to a head. Andrew Ross quoted one of the great lawyers of our time, Joseph Welch, at the end of his article. Here's another quote from the trial "If there is a God in heaven perhaps he can forgive you, [Mr Starr], I cannot." -- Adam Friedman
_______________ PASSING BY KAREN GRIGSBY BATES (04/15/98)
	First I was pleased with your thoughtful review of the two books that treat passing, and then I was pleased by the two thoughtful letters you received. I teach in the Afro-American Studies program at Indiana University, an overwhelmingly white school with a small black population, and we have just begun reading Nella Larsen's "Passing," the classic passing text of this century. What surprises me as I teach this book and others is how much the biological notion of race has taken root in all our imaginations, black and white -- and Native American for that matter, too. Maybe that's why some of my students prefer to think of themselves as biracial, though I am still not clear what is at stake when they position themselves in that way. Coming from south Louisiana, and having a family that traces the arc of its genealogy through Haiti, I look and am for all practical purposes white. So when I tell my students that I simply accept that at some point somebody strayed from the fold of the color line, they all gasp and murmur, black and white. It's sad but true, we still think a fraction of blackness makes us black and we still think that that fraction is "blood." -- John Laudun
_______________ NOT WAITING TO INHALE BY DAWN MacKEEN (04/09/98)
	Salon has become necessary reading for me, especially after late January, when about every other news organization, including the last bastions of journalistic integrity, "60 Minutes" and NPR, seemingly dropped acid and confused hype for importance and allegations for truth. I immediately tuned into Dawn MacKeen's interview with Dr. Elders, who is an icon of common sense. Her first page of the interview brought out topics that truly need attention and national discussion. My exception begins on the second page when MacKeen relentlessly prodded her about the president's current situation. Thankfully, Dr. Elders reminded us that whatever the validity of his alleged actions, it is none of our business. Too bad that was lost on the interviewer, who seemed intent on extracting any negative view possible. My argument is perhaps petty and technical, but precious Web space was lost by not continuing with an excellent discussion. I imagine it would be a "great scoop" to talk with someone who worked in the White House, and if so that should have been the article's approach. -- James A. Wright Atlanta SALON | April 21, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| BABY BULLS BY HEATHER CHAPLIN (04/15/98)

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.