(3 of 4)
Your essays have always been one of my favorite parts of the magazine. However, Roger Rosenblatt's "The Inaugural Bill" [ESSAY, Feb. 3] is a contrived piece of criticism of Clinton, a man who is willing to lead and represent our country, a most difficult and courageous thing to do. Rosenblatt wrote, "Try as one may, it is very hard to like the President very much." He referred to the invisible bumper sticker of the second campaign: RE-ELECT ONE, GET ONLY ONE. But millions of Americans obviously disagree with Rosenblatt. We think RE-ELECT ONE, GET TWO is a grand deal. We love both the Clintons. FRED HABER Riverdale, New York
Quick! Get a veterinarian to administer a rabies shot to Rosenblatt before he bites himself or someone nearby. COLEMAN MILLER Las Vegas
COSTLY CEREMONY
Am I getting more cynical with age, or do others share my view that the millions of dollars (some of it taxpayers' money) lavished on ceremonies and parties to usher in the new presidential term [INAUGURATION '97, Feb. 3] would have been much better spent on more useful and longer-lasting activities? Why not hold a small ceremony in the Oval Office and ask those wishing to contribute to a grander Inaugural to direct their donations to worthier causes? CURT MALOY Palm Desert, California
A grade C to Clinton for his vague and dull Inaugural Address. PETER C. LATSIS Culver City, California
NO COMEBACK FOR KEATING
At the end of your report on the overturning of criminal convictions against controversial junk-bond marketer Charles Keating [BUSINESS, Feb. 3], you suggested he might once again enter the savings and loan business. Let me assure you that he will not. Notwithstanding his recent success in court, Keating has been prohibited for life by the Office of Thrift Supervision from serving in any federally insured financial institution (bank, thrift, credit union) because of his activities while running the Lincoln Savings & Loan Association. Keating was charged by the ots with multiple and willful violations of banking laws and regulations. He was given a hearing before an administrative law judge who recommended his banishment. This recommendation was upheld by the federal appellate court. The ots prohibition order issued on Oct. 22, 1993, remains in force. NICOLAS P. RETSINAS, Director Office of Thrift Supervision Department of the Treasury Washington
DIVORCE BUT NO EQUAL PAY
So Lorna Wendt wants half her husband's money as part of her divorce settlement [THE PUBLIC EYE, Feb. 3]. Surely you jest. Just because two people work toward the same goal does not mean they deserve equal compensation. The airline pilot and the stewardess are both responsible for seeing their passengers safely to their destination, but they don't do the same job and they don't deserve equal pay. The Wendts performed very different jobs. Personnel could have been employed to perform every task that Lorna did at a fraction of the $10 million originally offered in the divorce settlement. Under no circumstances does Lorna Wendt deserve half her husband's money. DARYLE V. SCOTT Jacksonville Beach, Florida