Congratulations! I think it's great you found a man so worthy of succeeding Mel Gibson (PEOPLE, Jan. 27). Mark Harmon is not only incredibly sexy, but sensitive, not the least bit self-centered and, best yet, single!.
Salt Lake City
How could you! While everyone else was being distracted by the slovenly Don Johnson and the ubiquitous Bruce Springsteen, it appeared that I had the fantasy of Mark Harmon all to myself. Now you've gone and let the "fox" out of the bag! I did learn from your article, however, just how much Mark and I have in common—the quest goes on!
Laurie J. Haener
PEOPLE! PEOPLE! PEOPLE! I'm ashamed of you! You're doing more waffling than Aunt Jemima on this vital Sexiest Man Alive issue. First you announce with all due authority that it's Mel Gibson. I certainly have no quarrel with you there. Then you go and proclaim that Don Johnson is the sexiest man...on television. Now you say that since Mel has been in Australia for a year, Mark Harmon inherits the title. But wait a minute...isn't he only on television? Is he SMA for both categories? If Mel Gibson decides to forsake Australia and move to, say, Hoboken, will he retake the title? I'm so confused. You made the right decision a year ago. Stick to your guns and save your readers all this turmoil. Either that or sponsor a televised mud-wrestling match and let all three slug it out. Millions of women will be in your debt.
Mary V. Long
of Moonlighting gets my vote. If Mel has to go, bring on Bruce!
Alton Bay, N.H.
You can now retire the title for good.
I was very disappointed that your story about Donna Reed was so short. She had courage that few of us would have had during her last illness. With all due respect to Barbara Bel Geddes, who has been a longtime favorite on Dallas, Donna Reed brought real class to Southfork as "Miss Ellie," and we loved her for it. Brava, Donna Reed, we won't forget you.
Grass Valley, Calif.
I was shocked and disgusted to read Dick Clark's interview depicting his path to fame and fortune. Clark's use of such uncouth phrases takes away from his superstar status. I always admired Clark for his witty, fun-loving image. But, Mr. Clark, I think you'd better clean up your act or show your true colors in private instead of in a public interview with a magazine such as PEOPLE, where millions of readers—like me—can easily lose respect for you.
Vanessa R. Veneski
Something is very wrong with any society or government that ignores its hungry and homeless. Surely one of the basic reasons we pay taxes is so our government "for the people" can ensure that our fellow citizens do not have to forage through dumpsters and sleep on sidewalk grates. Such assistance is not socialism or liberalism or any other factionalism: It is simply humane.
Oh God, you just don't know how much your article on the homeless pained me! I wonder if people realize just how quickly it can hit home. I'm 50 and work as a clerk, and my husband is a truck driver. We barely make ends meet and have no benefits, no insurance. If something happened to either one of our jobs, we could easily be one of the homeless. It scares me!
I put your magazine in my law office reception room, where I find that most of my clients read and enjoy it. As for me, I have always thought of PEOPLE as a snappy gossip column with pictures. Always, that is, until the issue which contained a very thorough, human and compassionate article on the plight of the homeless. The pictures, the statistics and the tightly written story brought home to me the stark reality of this most human of problems in a way that no other newspaper or magazine has done. You are to be commended for your decision to devote so many pages and so many fine pictures to this pressing problem.
A 35-year-old woman with three children could go home to her mother in Grosse Point (one of Michigan's finest neighborhoods), but it would be "too emotionally painful for her." Then we have a black woman in her 40s who couldn't go out and get a job because her 13-year-old daughter got pregnant. And a 53-year-old man from Chicago who dropped out, "because he lost the knack" of making his way in the world. And this is all supposed to be Ronald Reagan's fault? Give me a break! No one in America has to be homeless or hungry. When I go to bed tonight I may worry about the starving children in Africa or the starving dogs in this country, but I won't waste one minute worrying about the homeless in America. All they have to do is stay in one place long enough to get public housing and welfare—courtesy of us, the hardworking taxpayers of America!
We've recently heard a lot concerning the poor and hungry in other parts of our world. Thanks for your article about the poor and homeless here in America. It made me realize that even though it's good to send help abroad, let's not forget our fellow American who may be down and out and needs a helping hand.