_______________SALON'S COVERAGE OF THE CLINTON CRISIS
	Embodied in the intent of the First Amendment was the concept that our nation's survival depends on a press that is independent. That certain Republicans would demand an FBI investigation of Salon's sources in the Hyde exposé is quite revealing, but consistent with the tactics employed in their pursuit of this president. Starr and his minions have ignored Justice Department guidelines in leaking grand jury testimony. They have acted without discretion in bullying and enticing witnesses to give versions of the "truth" they find useful and threatening those who do not bend to their will. The exhaustive invasion of the president's private life -- and the pursuit of so many of his former female friends who wanted to be left alone -- further illustrates the point. The get-Clinton mob cares not for the Constitution. Why would they care about Salon's right to focus on the underlying issues and the magazine's attempts to expose the ghastly hypocrisy of the president's congressional accusers? The Republicans' attempts to distinguish Hyde and Burton's behavior from Clinton's are nonsense. The Paula Jones case was long ago revealed to be a partisan legal vehicle to get the president. It was, and still is, a smear campaign masquerading as a legal case. Clinton, in my opinion, was morally correct to not cooperate with his enemies. Screw them! Do not back down. Those of us who understand the freedoms that are under assault by the get-Clinton zealots applaud your efforts and are cheering you on. -- Ron Bishop High Springs, Fla. I want to thank your organization for your coverage of issues relating to the president's problems (and related issues) that are not being given voice by the rest of the media. It is a matter of extreme concern that the media seem to be so one-sided in their reporting. It feels like the country is being forced into a political situation by a combination of a rabid Republican Party (willing to do everything it can to obstruct this administration's efforts to do what America hired it to do) and a media establishment that appears to be a willing accomplice. It is so frustrating that a third of the voting public can impose its will on the rest of the country and nothing is even mentioned of this in the mainstream press let alone anything being done about it. What is going on here? What is the media's motivation to be so biased in their reporting? Why aren't the issues that you raise being given any consistent voice by the bigger media organizations? Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I encourage you to continue your attempts to provide better balance than what is being offered the American public in general. -- David Barrymore
_______________WE'RE HERE, WE'RE ... UH ... STRAIGHT? BY SALLIE TISDALE (09/11/98)
	Thank you for publishing the first mention of bisexuality I've seen in all the flap over the "conversion" ads and stories. (And for that matter, since Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres started dating.) Bisexual folk get flack from both sides when it's convenient to draw for-us or against-us lines but become invisible when the straight or gay crowd want to claim highly visible members. Kinsey didn't have a binary scale for a reason; if we accept that nearly everything else about a person is capable of fluidity throughout a lifetime, why not the question of who they're attracted to? I would agree that the percentage of people who are squarely in the middle -- people who are perfectly equally attracted to members of both sexes -- is rather small, but I would also assert, like Ms. Tisdale, that the percentage of people who are exclusively attracted to only one gender, ever, is quite a bit smaller than many people assume. Thank you for a moment of positive bi-visibility; they're few and far between, and each one is very welcome. -- Molly Harbaugh To resolutely state that gays are wrong by proclaiming their sexuality as inherent essentially contradicts the arguments Tisdale sets forth later in her article. What is also ignored are the gender factors. For Tisdale, a bisexual woman, to dismiss the profound possibility that digressive sexuality is inextricably linked to the basic pre-verbal (and possibly pre-natal) developmental stages of all human beings, men most specifically, she presumes an insight that smacks of enlightened pomposity. It can be much easier for a man to define his sexuality, as it is more externally manifested than a woman's -- statement of fact. Demonstration of this can be found (for better or for worse) in any number of mating rituals that have traditionally been linked to some behaviors exclusive of gay males, i.e. heavy cruising, bathroom sex, etc. Why there is a conspicuous lack of lesbian women getting arrested in known gay cruising areas for al fresco flagrante delecto proves this theory even further. Ultimately, what we are forced to suffer, through this gender-based lack of understanding and mutual appreciation of a consistent sexuality concept, is ongoing dialogues of self-approbation and presupposition of others that is vaguely condescending, myopic and yes, mildly disturbing. -- Justin Nuttall New York
_______________LUCIANNE GOLDBERG DISHES ON THE STARR REPORT BY JEFF STEIN (09/11/98)
	After reading your article on Lucianne Goldberg, it only confirms my opinion about her: She is vicious, and sadistic. And what is sadism but the glee of other people's pain? -- Dave Fradin Having just read Jeff Stein's interview with Lucianne Goldberg, I am more convinced than ever that this bitter old woman is behind all of Monica's testimony. It is amazing to me that the public is supposed to believe everything that issues forth from Monica's mouth: Who was it whimpering to Linda Tripp that she had been a liar all her life? Why don't we believe that remark? I think Ms. Goldberg, through her protégé Linda, passed along a lot of her more lurid fantasies involving sex to Monica and promised her riches beyond her wildest dreams with a book deal after the deed is done. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that Monica could easily lie under oath. Who's going to refute her? Clinton? He would have a hard time now making a statement about the color of the sky and expecting to be believed. Ms. Goldberg's girls can be oh so proud of what they've accomplished. By hooking up with the ultimate madam, they've managed to screw the entire nation. -- Judith Spencer Fort Worth, Texas
_______________IS CYBERPUNK STILL BREATHING? BY ANDREW LEONARD (09/14/98)
	True, good works of "classic cyberpunk" (books set in worlds that resemble "Neuromancer" or "Blade Runner") have been scarce lately. Like all literary settings, authors run low on things to say about this sort of world after a while. And literary fashions also come and go, and this particular one seems to be mostly out of fashion right now. But the core idea of cyberpunk is alive and well. What cyberpunk has always been about is how technology -- highly pervasive and invasive technology -- changes us. The core question that cyberpunk answers: What is it to be post-human? Taking this view, works that Andrew Leonard dismisses in his article (such as Bruce Sterling's "Holy Fire," which he says is "obsessed with health care") are quite on target. -- Mark Dulcey Dorchester, Mass. Andrew Leonard's recent essay on "cyberpunk" in Salon strikes me as being very similar to a recent Economist article on "science in fiction." Both articles reveal more about the prejudices of their authors and their own incomplete knowledge of the genres they're attempting to survey than they provide any insight into their subject matter. I don't mean to sound hostile, but I'm a little dismayed by the overheated posturing of this article. The real weakness of the novels Leonard reviews has nothing to do with the moribundity (or lack thereof) of any literary subgenres, but a much older problem -- a failure of the authors' imaginations. Simply put, these novels are no good. They were published because there's a market of Red Herring, Fast Company and Wired readers out there who will see this tripe as hot-shit cutting-edge fiction (because it confirms the prejudices of theirs that have already been shaped by the aforementioned publications), when in reality they're warmed-over rehashes perpetrated by people who have themselves read a lot of Wired and maybe a William Gibson or Neal Stephenson novel once upon a time. There's a great deal of interesting fiction being written about the "real" cyberspace and its future. In fact, what's really happening in science fiction is far more exciting -- writers are taking for granted the idea of ubiquitous networking (and all of the tremendous social changes that ubiquitous networking implies). I know that beating on the nonexistent corpse of cyberpunk (which itself is illusory and chimerical as a meaningful way to categorize fiction) was a rhetorical device on Leonard's part, but it strikes me as part and parcel of the wider fondness for proclaiming the death of science fiction as a whole. Why people are so eager to see science fiction die, or are so afraid that it's already dead, I don't know, but it still bothers me to see people bagging on a genre that I love, especially when it's going through what I consider to be something of a renaissance. -- Forrest L. Norvell SALON | Sept. 22, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| "THIS HYPOCRITE BROKE UP MY FAMILY" BY DAVID TALBOT

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. 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. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject heading of your e-mail.