_______________ FROM CRACKHEAD TO LITERARY STAR BY MATTHEW FLAMM (07/01/98)
	I'd love to meet Matthew Flamm. I'd love to look in his eyes and see what registers there when I tell him my stories of the homeless: the humiliation, degradation and hellish alienation from the rest of humanity; the tales of babies born in piles of flea-infested garbage, not because their mothers were on crack, but because the local General Hospitals were simply too crowded on a given Saturday night; of men dropping dead on sidewalks and no one lifting a finger to so much as call 911; the police brutality; the cruelty of "NO STOPPING ANY TIME" signs everywhere you look. I wonder if, having heard these things, he might have less contempt for what he refers to condescendingly as stories about "the homeless." I have nothing against Mr. Stringer, but I find it odd that after 17 years of this horror in our land, the first one to write about it "whimsically" is the one who gets the invitation to The Party, The Show, who gets to bask in the glow of Fitzgerald's green light at the end of the dock. But then, it shouldn't be too surprising; after all, in this country especially, sugar attracts more than vinegar, even when vinegar is what is desperately needed. -- Rob Anderson
_______________ HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY OF POLITICIANS BY DAVID HOROWITZ (06/29/98)
	David Horowitz, normally a reasonable fellow whom I greatly admire, falls into a couple of serious errors in his analysis of Trent Lott's remarks concerning homosexuality. First, he takes Lott to task for truthfully answering a direct question. He notes that it is Lott's personal belief that homosexuality is a sin, and that therefore he should keep this to himself. As a professed Christian, Lott apparently does not buy into that kind of moral relativism. Sin is sin, whatever any mere mortal cares to think about it. Lott was merely stating what has been understood to be truth -- not opinion-- for 5,000 years of Judaic-Christian history. To suggest that public officials must be muzzled on points of basic morality is to expel truth itself from discussions of public policy, thus rendering everything subjective and therefore meaningless. Public discussion should not be subject to artificial limitations that make it acceptable only to atheists and agnostics. For robust discussions of God, sin, morality and public policy, one need only read the speeches and writings of America's Founding Fathers, such as Patrick Henry, who would undoubtedly be mugged today in the name of religious "diversity." Second, it may be Mr. Horowitz's "belief" that homosexuality is genetically innate, but there is no credible evidence to back this up. A handful of severely flawed "studies" by self-professed homosexual researchers does not constitute a solid case. In fact, highly publicized twins studies involving genetically identical twins (about half of whom have heterosexual twins), should be enough to discredit the "born that way" notion. So, too, is the paucity of evidence concerning biological explanations for lesbianism. Dr. Dean Hamer, the homosexual author of two of the most famous gay twin studies, has stated in his new book that lesbianism is environmental (cultural) rather than biological. He still believes that male homosexuality has a genetic component, but concedes that environment plays a key role. Furthermore, countless people have left homosexuality behind by recovering their gender identity through religious conversion and psychotherapy. Does Mr. Horowitz deny that these people exist? I serve on the board of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, and personally know many former homosexuals, some of whom are now married with children. Many people in Exodus International were into homosexual behavior for years, and honestly believed that they were "born that way" until they found a way out. Not being a Christian (at least, to my knowledge), Mr. Horowitz appears to misunderstand Lott's message: we all deal with sin; some have deeper problems than others; but all of it can be dealt with through the intercession of God in the form of His Son, Jesus Christ. That's the "therapeutic" part that he seems to find so distasteful. I share Mr. Horowitz's reluctance to reduce all human problems to therapeutic solutions. But I have seen God work miracles in the human heart of alcohol abusers, porn addicts and, yes, people trapped in homosexual behavior. -- Robert H. Knight
_______________ HEARSAY RULES BY DAVID CORN (06/19/98)
	I just read a letter to the editor from Jodi R. Dreher, who is a great fan of Matt Drudge and claims to be a journalist (at a university newspaper). Dreher, if I am understanding her point correctly, asserts that Drudge's publication of unresearched quotes cannot be construed as libel, as his immediate retraction indicates an absence of malice, and that rushing stories to print without fact checking them is desirable, as it's "Big Picture" journalism. I hope Dreher is not on the editorial board at her newspaper, as a paper run by these principles would be rife with planted falsehood, weird innuendo and malicious gossip passing itself off as news. The difference between rumor and news is fact checking and vetting of sources, and Drudge has admitted that he does very little of either. Retracting unverified stories when challenged isn't "absence of malice"; it's simple cowardice -- if you can't or won't stand by your story, why did you print it? It would be a simple matter for me to type "Jodi Dreher has sex with Rottweilers" and retract the statement when she complains, but that story is already out, she's already being ridiculed as a result of it and my pusillanimous backpedaling disgusts any real journalists exposed to the whole affair. (That's why I don't type things like that.) Journalism is hard work. Fact checking is part of the hard work. Shortcuts and lazy practices do not make for good journalism. Scandal mongering is not a profession -- it's a pathology. As a postscript, I wonder why it is that media critics like Noam Chomsky and Norman Solomon and political researchers like Phillip Agee, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott and Anthony Summers can write well-researched tomes with abundant footnotes and lovingly cross-checked sources -- and they're "conspiracy nuts," while outfits like the New York Times and the Washington Post print tales of semen-stained dresses -- and are considered respectable sources of information. -- Michael Treece SALON | July 8, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| HOW THE MEDIA CONVICTED HILLARY CLINTON BY MOLLIE DICKENSON

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.