does state that the GNP will doublenand grow at an annual rate of 4.7 percentnuntil the year 2000, and productiitynwill increase 230-250 percent.nIt is unlikely that these goals will benaccomplished, given that the high ratesnof investment during the last eightnyears have produced only a meagern2.6 percent growth rate. The Sovietsnsimply lack the money to invest more,nand their labor pool is dwindling.nThe problem of helping young Sovietsnachieve computer literacy alsonfrustrates communist planners. Expertsnestimate that the Soviets are fromnfive to 20 years behind the U.S. in thenimplementation of computer technology.nTo catch up would involve morenthan economic and technological de-n’elopment, though; it would requirenthat Party officials relax their concernnwith the control of information—anmost unlikely development.nEen on the hard left, it is difficultnto find many who still champion anSoviet regime that currently holds annestimated 10,000 people in prison fornpolitical reasons. Two thousand ofnthese prisoners are inmates in psychiatricnhospitals for the criminally insane,nadministered by the state securitynofficials of the Ministry of InternalnAffairs. Political “patients” in thesenprisons are surrounded by violentncriminals and regularly given powerfulnneuroleptic drugs. For speaking outnabout these abuses, the Soviet psychiatristnDr. Anatoly Koryagin was himselfncommitted to such a hospital onncharges of promulgating anti-Sovietnpropaganda. Exposure of Soviet perversionnof psychiatric techniquesnforced the USSR to withdraw from thenWorld Psychiatric Association or facencertain expulsion.nIn the 1960’s many people supposednthat by sacrificing freedom the Marxistnsystems could develop faster than thenfree-market systems of the West. ThirdnWorld nations especially were attractednto Marxism as the quickest road toneconomic development. In fact, thenSoviet Union enjoys neither freedomnnor economic success. It is a deformednsociety in which a small elite perpetuatesnits power by an overdevelopedncapacity for brutal, naked force. As anpolitical model it is obscene. ccnMichael Warder is director of publicnaffairs at The Rockford Institute.nOn Passage BacknFrom IndianPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnBetsy Clarke’s informative and readablenreview of In Search of Love andnBeauty by Ruth Prawer Jhabvalan(Chronicles, Nov.) raised the questionnof how we ought to regard homosexuality.nTalking of the homosexuals onnparade in jhabvala’s novel, Clarkenwrites, “By stressing the fact that fathersnwere absent from the early homesnof these deviants, the author evennsuggests a cause for their frenetic andnsterile sexuality.” I think “contributingnfactor” rather than “cause” mighfnmore accurately describe the relationshipnbetween absent father and homosexualnson.nMore important, though, than decidingnwhat kind of home life is statisticallynmost likely to foster homosexuality,nwe must assess the moral andnreligious questions posed. In a lot ofnour current talk about “homosexuality”nthere is a blurring of things thatnshould be kept distinct.nThe media-fostered craziness on thensubject of “gays” and “gay rights” hasngot a lot of us flummoxed, but reallynit’s our own fault for being unfaithfulnto tradition. Take as an example homosexuality,nor what used to be calledn”sodomy,” meaning not just a particularnmode of physical connectionnbut the whole business of same-sexnfornication.nSodomites were, the Bible says,npeople who, out of self-willed lust,nwished to couple with several handsomenyoung men who turned up inntovn. (The young men happened tonbe angels, but the Sodomites didn’tnknow that, no doubt because lust tendsnto make you spiritually blind.)nGod’s judgment on these people,nthe Bible indicates, was that they werenguilty of serious sin. He appearsnnot to have excused them for havingnbeen born in the wrong familynenironment.nThere is a “disposition” or tendencyntoward erotic attachment to one’s ownnnnsex. This is—Old Style—a temptation.nMore or less vigorous, pervertednsexual activity is something else. Thisnis—Old Style—sin. A lot of formsnhere: masturbation, adultery, “sodomy,”netc. For sodomy it is now probablynbest to use the euphemism “activenhomosexuality” (one is here mostlyntalking about the male side of thenperversion, but it’s all the same on thenfemale side). Practitioners of this sinncall it by a great many colorful names,nof which “faggotry” is one of the fewnthat is printable.nNone of all this stuff is gay, in thenoriginal meaning of that word. Cay,namong inverts, rose up as a shorthandnway of positioning someone in “thenmovement.” “Is he gay?” meant “Hasnhe progressed to faggotry (overt) fromnhomosexuality (latent)?” It is a kind ofntenet of the movement that all reasonablenpeople have plenty of the latentnhomosexuality.nSo, you see, traditionalists (peoplenholding to Old Style morality) wouldnhave to accord all rights to homosexuals,nwho are simply fellow humannbeings who find themselves tempted tonsame-sex erotic activity. But whatnrights does sin have? Only the old rightnit has always claimed: I am, therefore Inam right. If you agree with the sinnernthat because he is tempted he mustnsin, how can you deny overt pedophilia,nadultery, abortion, parricide, ornanything else?nBut then our age sees no sin anywhere,ndefined either as disobediencenof natural or revealed law or as violationnof one’s own essence. We see onlynpsychic or social inconvenience, oftennto be made less inconvenient by reriggingnthe social machinery (“gaynrights,” etc.).nAs a journalist and inveterate reader,nI deeply resent the apparently irreversiblenruin of one of the happiest andnbest basic three-letter words in thenlanguage. ccnTom WhitenHonesddle, PAnFEBRUARY J986 / 47n