Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ RIGHT ON! HATS OFF TO A CONDEMNED MAN BY DAVID HOROWITZ (03/01/99)

David Horowitz's defense of Christopher Hitchens was inane even by his standards. What is truly remarkable in this particular column is the way in which Horowitz defines the left in America today: Alexander Cockburn, Katha Pollitt and Todd Gitlin. And this is supposed to be serious commentary? Cockburn has never had any influence on anyone in the United States (with the exception, apparently, of Hitchens); Pollitt writes for a left-of-center establishment magazine (as distinct from doing the real work of the left: organizing); and Gitlin last performed a meaningful leftist action some 30 years ago (and no, writing books about the halcyon days of the New Left does not constitute a leftist action). The real left in America, such as it is, has no time to waste on the behavior of supposed fellow travelers like Christopher Hitchens.
As for the rest of the Washington commentariat who have taken sides on the Blumenthal-Hitchens matter, who really cares what they think? Friendships end every day, over the slimmest of reasons, and just because one of these friends is a White House advisor and the other is a writer who appears in national publications doesn't change the fundamental facts: A friendship broke apart. This is a personal matter for the participants, but an irrelevancy to those of us not obsessed with celebrity culture in its myriad forms.
As for the heart of the Hitchens-Blumenthal matter, obviously Horowitz hasn't been paying attention: A number of journalists have come forward and confirmed Blumenthal's testimony in that they couldn't extract any material from him about Monica Lewinsky. References to Lewinsky as a stalker had appeared in hundreds of papers before the famous lunch.
-- Howard Litwak
Seattle

_______________ FLYNT'S REVENGE BY CAROL LLOYD(02/23/99)

It puzzles me why you published four html pages of an interview with one of the biggest scumbags in the country, Larry Flynt. This "man" is a disgrace. The reason he is now being celebrated in so many quarters is painfully obvious: He is going after Republicans. It galls me to see such a low-bred, racist and sexist man being accepted, albeit haltingly, by so many liberals. Have any of Flynt's newfound "friends" actually looked through his "publication"? I doubt it. If they have, they will find the vilest, most gutter-level depictions of women and blacks.
And what about Flynt's own checkered sexual past? Here is an individual whose first sexual encounter -- by his own admission in his autobiography, "An Unseemly Man" -- was with a chicken. Larry Flynt is an abomination.
-- Tom Gordon
New York

N E X T+P A G E+| Is Caroline Knapp an AA traitor?

_______________ RIGHT ON! HATS OFF TO A CONDEMNED MAN BY DAVID HOROWITZ (03/01/99)
	David Horowitz's defense of Christopher Hitchens was inane even by his standards. What is truly remarkable in this particular column is the way in which Horowitz defines the left in America today: Alexander Cockburn, Katha Pollitt and Todd Gitlin. And this is supposed to be serious commentary? Cockburn has never had any influence on anyone in the United States (with the exception, apparently, of Hitchens); Pollitt writes for a left-of-center establishment magazine (as distinct from doing the real work of the left: organizing); and Gitlin last performed a meaningful leftist action some 30 years ago (and no, writing books about the halcyon days of the New Left does not constitute a leftist action). The real left in America, such as it is, has no time to waste on the behavior of supposed fellow travelers like Christopher Hitchens. As for the rest of the Washington commentariat who have taken sides on the Blumenthal-Hitchens matter, who really cares what they think? Friendships end every day, over the slimmest of reasons, and just because one of these friends is a White House advisor and the other is a writer who appears in national publications doesn't change the fundamental facts: A friendship broke apart. This is a personal matter for the participants, but an irrelevancy to those of us not obsessed with celebrity culture in its myriad forms. As for the heart of the Hitchens-Blumenthal matter, obviously Horowitz hasn't been paying attention: A number of journalists have come forward and confirmed Blumenthal's testimony in that they couldn't extract any material from him about Monica Lewinsky. References to Lewinsky as a stalker had appeared in hundreds of papers before the famous lunch. -- Howard Litwak Seattle
_______________ FLYNT'S REVENGE BY CAROL LLOYD(02/23/99)
	It puzzles me why you published four html pages of an interview with one of the biggest scumbags in the country, Larry Flynt. This "man" is a disgrace. The reason he is now being celebrated in so many quarters is painfully obvious: He is going after Republicans. It galls me to see such a low-bred, racist and sexist man being accepted, albeit haltingly, by so many liberals. Have any of Flynt's newfound "friends" actually looked through his "publication"? I doubt it. If they have, they will find the vilest, most gutter-level depictions of women and blacks. And what about Flynt's own checkered sexual past? Here is an individual whose first sexual encounter -- by his own admission in his autobiography, "An Unseemly Man" -- was with a chicken. Larry Flynt is an abomination. -- Tom Gordon New York
	N E X T+P A G E+\| Is Caroline Knapp an AA traitor?