_______________AN OPEN LETTER TO GORE VIDAL BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS (10/20/98)
	Upon reading the letters printed in response to Christopher Hitchens' "Open letter," I finally came to understand that the most common interpretation of the Clinton debacle allows only one viable response to any and all of the issues involved: Shut up. Be happy. Judging from these letters, it appears that it is much more important for a commentator to be put in his place on the political left-to-right spectrum than for a commentator to be -- gasp -- listened to. Hitchens' writings on the Clinton fiasco universally commit the single most deadly sin against American culture: They dare to suggest that something is not, at the end of the day, essentially hunky-dory. No walking off into the sunset, however belabored; no happy ending; and certainly no apologetics. As for my own interpretation of Hitchens, I can only say that regardless of his professional associations (e.g., The Nation), I am incapable of identifying his voice as particularly left- or right-leaning. I do, however, understand Hitchens to be as trenchantly concerned with the vast scope of corruption in the Clinton administration as we all ought to be. Of all the things that have been shocking in the course of this scandal and its coverage, the greatest shock would have to be the one felt when one realizes that the admission of "all not being well in Happyland" has become itself the single greatest obstacle in the path of nearly all critical thinking and useful commentary on the subject. Bravo to Hitchens for simply keeping his eyes and ears open. -- J. Christian Guerrero Durham, N.C.
_______________THE BRIDEGROOM STRIPPED BARE BY DANIEL REITZ(10/22/98)
	Daniel Reitz's homoerotic flight of fancy about a supposedly genuine stag party that he supposedly attended presents a common but unrecognized stereotype as if it were an original insight. Reitz proposes to act as our guide as he takes us on an anthropological journey to find out what really goes on when a bunch of regular hetero guys get together for a regular hetero guy ritual and the testosterone starts pumping. In this particular ritual, the golden boy bridegroom dons a wet T-shirt and ultimately has all of his clothes torn off by a macho, misogynistic friend. The not-so-subtle point we are led to is that tough-guy heterosexual men who use the words "bitch" and "whore" are secretly attracted to other men. A further, unstated point is that, quite possibly, all heterosexual men possess a latent homosexuality; rituals that bring men together, it seems, actually mask a desire for homosexual sex. Both notions are as absurd as the right-wing proposal that homosexuals can be "cured" of their deviance through religion and therapy. The idea of the aggressive heterosexual male as closet homosexual may provide comfort to certain people. It satisfies somehow to emasculate the obnoxious macho guy by finding evidence of his secret attraction to men. However, this is an easy and common stereotype with no basis in fact. And I've never understood why this stereotype was OK with gays. If we tear down someone we don't like by "proving" homosexuality, aren't we just taunting him as a "fag," albeit in a more sophisticated way? Do gays really want the accusation of homosexuality to be an instrument of ridicule? As for the notion that male-dominated rituals are dripping with homosexual desire, I can only speak for my own experience. I have been to several stag parties. I have also been to football games, basketball games and fraternity parties. I've played tackle football, touch football and flag football. I've participated in any number of the predominately male rituals of our culture. In none of these was homoeroticism a subtext for me or any of my friends. I believe only a very immature mind would think it was. -- Robert MacGrogan Atlanta, Ga.
_______________FREE SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK -- AGAIN SALON EDITORIAL (10/22/98)
	While I agree that free speech is paramount in our country, I am aware of the fact that minors use the Internet. To put it plainly, I think we can all agree that it probably is not a good thing for a 6-year-old to be viewing pictures of sex. If you do not, I think at least everybody can agree that it isn't a good thing for a 6-year-old to be viewing more unconventional sex, like bestiality, which is also available on the Net, along with many other strange and arguably disturbing practices. The CDA II is, of course, doomed to fail. This is mostly due to the technical incompetence and downright illiteracy of our lawmakers, not to mention their apparent, and surprising, ignorance of the Constitution. Since it appears that most representatives couldn't operate a computer much less write code for one, I'd like to toss a suggestion out onto the floor: It would be a simple matter to have the Internet self-regulate. This would mean that each Web site would have a self-imposed rating system. If a Web site did not support a rating system, it would be assumed to be "X" rated. "G" rated Web sites would be made available to all minors, "PG" to teens and so on. Since both major browsers, Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, are now free, it would be a simple matter to modify each browser to support the system. Each browser could be hard-coded to view only sites of a particular level -- for example, a particular version of Netscape would only be able to view "G" sites, and nothing else . If this were done, it would be difficult for an experienced professional programmer (like myself) to circumnavigate and nearly impossible for some teenage "hacker." Different versions of the browsers would be made available for different levels of access. This system would eliminate the need for Net filters, which do not work and are easy to disable. Sites making egregious violations would be penalized, all the adults and children would be happy and no restrictions on free speech would have been made. -- Richard Wicks
_______________THE GREATEST GAMBLING HALL ON EARTH BY HEATHER CHAPLIN (10/23/98)
	Could you please get a real financial writer? Heather Chaplin's article on the New York Stock Exchange as gambling hall was nothing but a show-and-tell presentation, probably culled from the exchange's tourist literature. Why couldn't Chaplin explore why even "as capitalism disappears into the disembodied ether of computer networks," the electronic NASDAQ has chosen to merge with the traditional AMEX in order to develop another open-outcry exchange to compete with the "downright quaint" NYSE? Or perhaps Chaplin could have done some research on the recent settlement between NASDAQ and the SEC over the excessive price spreads at the electronic exchange that were bilking investors. Salon's Whitewater coverage has been the vanguard in exegesis of that scandal's arcana. I've looked for similar traces of insight in your money column, but so far Chaplin has shown that she's not a reluctant capitalist, but a reluctant thinker. -- Jonathan Bailly New York City
_______________NOT A WARM PUPPY BY JONATHAN LETHEM (10/23/98)
	Jonathan Lethem's sole astute observation in his review of "Happiness" is that it "works to assure us of our superiority, our lack of risk at the outset." Such a work is, needless to say, morally reprehensible in the extreme. I advise Lethem to consult the archives of "Daily Variety," where I reviewed Solondz's first film, "Fear, Anxiety and Depression." Lethem reports that the failure of "Fear" nearly led to the end of Solondz's career. Damn! -- David Ehrenstein
_______________THE JOY OF PERL BY ANDREW LEONARD (10/13/98)
	Thanks for Andrew Leonard's article, "The Joy of Perl." I'm glad you are covering open source software, which I've long contended is the Internet's best-kept secret. I want to amplify my remarks about Python, another important open source language that O'Reilly & Associates supports through our publishing program and our efforts to raise the profile and credibility of open source software. The article highlighted the "Perl/Python debate" -- programmers' defense of their preference for either language. Although in defending Perl against Eric Raymond's remarks in favor of Python, I may have sounded like a Perl partisan, I want to be clear that I was simply trying to set the record straight regarding Perl's supposed decline in popularity. Both languages are vital, growing and important, and O'Reilly is committed to publishing books on both. We agree with Larry Wall that "There's more than one way to do it," and that programmers should choose for themselves what they believe is the best tool for the job at hand. We strive to provide the most useful information on both Python and Perl, as well as many other technologies of interest to our customers. We've invested more editorial and financial resources in Python than any other publisher. Our "Programming Python" is the bestselling Python book. We have two more books on Python coming out in the next few months. These are not the actions of a publisher that doesn't believe in Python. It is an extremely powerful language with an exciting future. -- Tim O'Reilly SALON | Oct. 28, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| THE POWER OF POSITIVE SHRINKING BY CAROL LLOYD

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.