Go Yunmi Cho; A Weird Ad; Cockburn and McVeigh; Snobby Taki; More Nonsense About Armond; They Love MUGGER in Alaska
Sorry that I'm a few weeks late with my praise, but I had to congratulate Yunmi Cho for her very enjoyable and well-written story, "Waiting to Exhale" ("First Person," 3/21). Thanks for publishing great pieces like that. I look forward to anything else Cho may have in store for New York Press readers.
Mauro Felipe, Manhattan
We Owe You Nothing
What was the meaning of the bizarre little ad at the bottom right corner of p. 95 in the 4/4 New York Press? The copy made no sense whatsoever, nor did the text, champagne-bottle picture, name-and-address coupon or the "foreign" designation at the bottom left. The only part I could understand was its headline, "UNBELIEVABLE." Is the ad an elaborate private joke, did someone just have a few column inches to kill, or is my copy of the paper "timed to explode"?
Keith Kelly, Manhattan
McVeigh of the Gun
I am a newspaper reporter in Lawton, OK, and I write a weekly Internet column for my paper, The Lawton Constitution. I read Alexander Cockburn's 3/28 "Wild Justice" piece, and I wondered if any of you feel any discomfort at all about running a piece that praises Timothy McVeigh "as a political analyst and historian." How do you separate McVeigh as a "political analyst" from the political statement he made by killing 168 men, women and children? Is it legitimate in the eyes of New York Press for someone to publicize his political views by killing 168 people?
Tom Jackson, Lawton, OK
Both Sides Now
Finally someone?namely, Alexander Cockburn?with the courage to tell it like it is. Good Lord, I thought I was the only one who was disgusted by the whiny prayers and messages from the "survivors" (make sure that is in quotes) of the Oklahoma bombing. The stupid memorial had nothing in it about moral relativism, or Timothy McVeigh's point of view.
What were those lame designers thinking? It's like those biased kooks in Hiroshima who leave maudlin prayers, shallow haikus and whining notes about the nukes, yet nothing about why they got nuked. Same as the War Crimes Museum in Vietnam?there's nothing there about why the U.S. sprayed the Vietnamese with napalm and Agent Orange. I mean, an uninformed person could spend hours at either one of these places and leave without knowing anything about the perpetrators of the Hiroshima bombing or the Vietnam War, beyond the name of the country.
These sites, these memorials, should be forced to air the U.S. side of things, just like Cockburn recommends that McVeigh's views be represented at the place where he murdered hundreds. I'm sure Cockburn, being the fair and openminded moral relativist that he is, would agree.
H. Borelli, Manhattan
Alexander Cockburn replies: I never separated McVeigh's analysis from his terrible action, but merely stressed that this same analysis was more coherent than the response of the Oklahoma Memorial's designers. As for Borelli's point, of course I think that memorials should be used to provoke thought and useful debate, though how exactly would Borelli "force" the city of Hiroshima to include the U.S. government's point of view? I'm not sure what his point about "moral relativism" is all about.
He's Housebroken
MUGGER: During your holiday we missed having you around the house. We continually wonder how an intelligent guy like you has been able to endure living in the poster city for liberal idiocy, but trust that you know best. Keep up the good work. You might be pleased to know that your work is read and appreciated in downtown Cuero, TX.
The John Marler Family, Cuero, TX
Considers Taki a Snob
Taki: Thanks for another egregiously obtuse piece ("Top Drawer," 4/4). Even by your own definition you are, most indubitably, a snob, stupid.
You write: "elitists are people who have gained distinction by their own efforts." Not you. In fact, you are a mediocre writer/thinker who has thrived on the strength of his class connections. You continue: "snobs attach exaggerated importance to birth and wealth, look down on those with neither and claim unfounded friendship with those they consider their superiors."
Very much you, you name-dropping snob.
J. Canale, Brooklyn
Greek and Latin
If Taki wishes to be a member of the elite he must at least quote Horace correctly (4/4). The word at the beginning of the second line of the ode is "Soracte," a mountain north of Rome, not "Socrate," which Taki probably takes for a reference to Socrates.
I'm afraid that Gen. Kreipe would have treated Taki with the contempt that his pretensions deserve.
Harvey Fried, Manhattan
Cretan Hop
Despite the Cretan location of Messrs. Kreipe and Fermor, undoubtedly they quoted Horace more accurately than Taki does, naming a mountain near Rome, and not the Athenian philosopher.
Coleman S. Kendall, Washington, DC
Snob Creek
I much enjoyed Taki's recent discussion of "elites" and "snobs." His definition of a snob is even closer to the mark than many people may realize. "Snob" was English public school shorthand for a wealthy boy of plebeian origin. The original Latin, sine nobilitate, means "without nobility," and was entered as "S. Nob." after the fellow's name in the school register. Of course, human nature being what it is, the "S. Nob." usually acted as more of an unfeeling upper-class twit than did most of his genuinely aristocratic classmates.
In any event, I enjoy all of New York Press' columns.
Edmund J. Gannon, Margate, NJ
Love Is a Battlefield
Taki's assertion ("Top Drawer," 3/28) that during the battle for Stalingrad sexual activity was "utterly implausible" is bare-faced rubbish and cannot be sustained. Even in the most desperate conditions, the sexual instinct remains remarkably potent, possibly even heightened. No one claims Stalingrad produced a record baby crop in 1943. Nonetheless, babies were born and some survived. I've met at least five living proofs of this (all born in Stalingrad in mid-1943).
Although the Russian Consulate in New York could not give me an immediate answer to my "very specific question" on total live births in Stalingrad in 1943, the duty officer stated that his father was among them.
Peter F. Skinner, Manhattan
Bock of the Day
MUGGER: I enjoyed your skewering of Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman and Dan Rather in your 4/4 online "Billboard" piece. However, you should be aware that the choice beer of politically correct poseurs in Austin, TX, is not Pearl, a cheap and awful San Antonio brew and a perennial favorite for quarters games, but Shiner Bock.
Derek Copold, Houston
Popping Off
Why all this fuss about overexposed New York Times pundit Maureen Dowd? I last read her column when it was rumored that Rudy Giuliani would run against Hillary Clinton for the Senate. Dowd published a silly pop quiz about Washington, DC, for Rudy Giuliani to take. Dowd wrote that the "term" hooker comes from Washington, DC, and Gen. Joe Hooker of Civil War fame. A simple look in the dictionary shows that "hooker" existed in the 1840s, in New York City. Basic stuff. In fact, my colleague, George Thompson of NYU, found the earliest citation. The New York Times, of course, issued no correction. I gave up.
Barry Popik, Manhattan
Darning Sox
MUGGER: I have been reading your columns with a great deal of respect and enjoyment, but picking the Red Sox (4/4) shows me that you're actually unstable. Take two aspirins and got to bed. Now.
R.E. Bement, Longview, TX
Red Scare
MUGGER: Although I sometimes disagree with certain statements you make in your articles, I generally find them interesting and well thought out. However, after reading your prediction that the Red Sox will make it to the World Series?are you sure you haven't started smoking weed again? I mean, Oakland certainly has a much better chance of beating the mighty Yankees (yes, I'm a Yankees fan) than Boston does. If Pedro Martinez could pitch every game, then maybe?but other than that, they have no pitching at all. This is not even to mention Nomar's problems. I think the Yankees will be in the series again?another Subway Series.
Eric Roache, Glen Ridge, NJ
The Malibu Recluse Emerges!
MUGGER: Judging by the nonchalant greed Hillary Clinton has brazenly demonstrated since becoming a public figure, I'd say she's emblematic of the darker side of the 1980s, a notch above Ivan Boesky (4/4).
I think you have defamed Ivan Boesky.
I enjoy your writing.
Robert G. Zimmerman, Dakota Dunes, SD
Whiff, Whiff, Whiff
What happened to your "Mail" section? It seems to be shrinking rapidly, and more and more of the letters come from areas outside New York City (if this is New York Press, please pay more attention to the people of New York and surrounding areas). Besides, many letters respond to your online edition?why not have these letters posted online only?
Re: Taki's 4/4 column: he is wrong, he is a snob. Taking pleasure in riling others in a public area is snobbish. Furthermore, his columns merely serve to present his opinions about what he believes to be quality while utterly dismissing anything he is uninterested in as unworthy. Is this not snobbery?
Your paper seems to be shrinking. Why no articles relating to pseudo-President Bush's recent overturning of policies geared toward the betterment of our planet and the human race? MUGGER is more of a pussy than George Tabb will ever be. If he purports to have a legitimate voice as a political commentator, he ought not to shy away from topics, even if they may mar the image of his beloved Bush.
Fuck you and your lousy paper. I can't wait until next week. Bring back Kaz (not to mention all the great writers you've let slip away).
Dan Myers, Brooklyn
The editors reply: Our "Mail" section isn't "shrinking." Nor are "more and more" letters coming from "outside New York." Nor is "riling others in a public area"?whatever that means?snobbish. Nor is New York Press "shrinking." Nor has there been no mention in New York Press of President Bush's environmental policies. Nor has MUGGER refrained from criticizing Bush.
Pay closer attention, Dan.
Dan! Long Time No See!
RE: Armond White's review of Blow ("Film," 4/4): Why do you keep this cat on staff? As always, his article does nothing in the way of recommending or disdaining the movie. Rather his focus is on the moral ambiguity of the film. This is a paper with sex ads in the back, not a guide to help parents decide what films to take their children to! Less tangents, more reviewing, Armond!
I'm sick of White's college-like studies of films. A newspaper reviewer's mission ought to be to shed light on what may or may not appeal to the viewer, not to deal in the machinations of the material presented. When reading a review of cinema, music, etc., there are two basic questions that should be answered: 1) What is the basic premise and tone of the work? 2) Would you recommend this film and why?
Armond White does nothing of the sort. As an aside, White's comment that Ted Demme has been "pledged to the hiphop era since his feature debut Who's The Man?," does not complete the full picture. Ted Demme got his start as one of the first producers of Yo! MTV Raps in the late 1980s.
Dan Myers, Brooklyn
The editors reply: Armond White isn't "on staff," and if White doesn't often engage in "recommending or disdaining" movies, we've been reading a different White. If Myers wants pat, thumbs-up/thumbs-down reviews of movies, why doesn't he read Time Out New York?
Margin Walker
I gotta say I'm really disappointed every time I open up your film section and find that Armond White is reviewing a movie I'm actually curious about, like Blow. Please, in the future, only assign him movies nobody gives two shits about (Tomcats). He seems to like those better, anyway.
Tom Patterson, Brooklyn
Point Break
Armond White often ranks as the film critic I love to hate (I cite as a recent example his misguided 2/28 slant on 3000 Miles to Graceland), but he's also able to articulate downward-slope trends in contemporary cinema with the precision of a laser beam. His two cents on Ted Demme's Blow perfectly illustrate the hypocrisy inherent in remystifying "drug hedonism, detracting from its most alarming social effects." Not since his angry bitch-slaps at the vastly overrated Blair Witch Project has Armond been so on point.
At any rate, I look forward to his review next week, where he'll once again piss me off with his radical (and occasionally puerile) theories. Gotta hand it to you, Armond?you make great copy.
Zenny Kip, Manhattan
Film Comment
I find it very weird that you published Armond White's defense of 3000 Miles to Graceland (2/28), which, despite being analyzed way too seriously for an early-year Hollywood B caper, doesn't make the slightest effort to actually get people out to theaters. Instead, Mr. White just references (with a fair amount of detail) various instances in the film that we are completely unfamiliar with. I mean, New York Press is not an academic journal. Should you really be printing descriptive analyses of films that have barely been released?
In general, I appreciate how Mr. White writes from his gut, but there's a line being crossed where what he's writing is being diluted by his own eccentricities.
Gabe Klinger, via Internet
For Common Things
Would someone please tell Armond White that he is not getting graded on his movie reviews? That White possesses an immense knowledge of cinema history is apparent. However, I feel that he is doing New York Press readers a disservice by constantly referring to other (sometimes obscure) films throughout his reviews. By citing several films per review (or in the case of his 4/4 review of Blow, 10 separate titles) to prove a point, any conclusion that White is drawing may be lost on a reader who hasn't attended this year's Iranian film festival. We know you know your stuff, Armond. We just want to know if Blow blows, not how Scorsese and De Palma did it better decades ago.
Kadee Duffy, Brooklyn
Harridan's Twilight
MUGGER: Just read your latest (4/4) on New York state's junior senator and world-class cunt. The quote you pulled is much more important than she thinks.
Yes, we are trying to roll back the idiocy of the legislation of Emperor Roosevelt II. To her, this is blasphemy against the only god she's ever known. She's going to her grave a broken and humiliated woman. Everything she's believed in for all these years will be proven wrong. It's a new world. Keep up the good work.
Jim Klein, San Francisco
Oooo! Scawy Pewwy!
MUGGER: Just finished your 4/4 column. Calling Hillary Clinton "an evil cunt"? Sorry, your preface that you're paraphrasing Harold Ickes doesn't protect you here. Real bad. Actually, disgraceful. Why do conservatives lose it so when it comes to the Clintons? I have no love for the two of them, but I'll be damned if I'm going to accept that acerbic obscenity as acceptable from you or anybody else.
Mitch Perry, Tampa
Ugly Phrase, Ugly Times
MUGGER: Welcome back. I absolutely love your column. I don't know of any communicator who captures what's going on in today's silly times as well as you do. I'm a regular reader.
But one thing you wrote in your most recent column disturbed me a little. You use a reference to the "c-word" to describe Hillary. Everyone knows she's a dirtbag anyway. To mention that word is beneath a person of your intelligence. It's an ugly phrase.
Gregory J. Kelly, Jamesburg, NJ
Rocky Beach
One human's thoughts, on MUGGER's 4/4 column:
This was, overall, an enjoyable and interesting piece. It contained a couple of sideswipes, though, that were just too ridiculous for me to avoid commenting on.
MUGGER writes: "Hillary Clinton...a woman who symbolizes everything that's wrong with American politics..."
What might she symbolize? Let's see:
That someone can gain political power just by having a last name that's famous and familiar to Americans, because it is the same as a former U.S. president's? Someone such as, oh, I dunno?George W. Bush?
That someone can gain high office with little to no prior experience in how that office operates? Such as George W. Bush?
That someone can gain such office through the "efforts of partisans of varying interests," such as the efforts of the oil, mining and credit companies Bush's campaign sold out to?
That someone can gain such office even in the face of clear and abundant evidence that they will lie and evade their way out of any sticky questions? As was demonstrated by W's complete avoidance of his DWI charges, his clear avoidance of military service and his hilarious attempts to avoid admitting his obvious past cocaine habit?
Swipe Two. MUGGER writes about the strategic importance of South America. Yes, it'll be good if the U.S. has South America to turn to. After all, Bush has succeeded in pissing off the rest of the world in a record-breaking 2.5 months. Who's left but South America? And Africa.
I mean, so what if Europe has, collectively, an economy that's almost as strong as the U.S. economy, and so what if they stop linking to our dollar and start competing in earnest? Hey, we're only going into a strong and deep recession. And so what if Europe, counting Russia, has most of the world's nuclear weapons? Hey, Europeans have the nerve to consider our current president an underqualified idiot who owes his position solely to political influence. Screw them. Those South Americans say such nice things. Besides, no South American nation has nukes, so we don't have to worry when Bush does something inept and senseless, something that pisses them off, too.
As for Bush being "absurdly condemned by lockstep liberals" as a Cold War throwback, please, show me any evidence that he has any foreign policy at all. The only one in his administration who seems to have a grain of common sense is Colin Powell. Fortunately for the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, they keep cutting him out of the loop.
To which I say, good.
I thought it would take four years for people to remember why we fired Bush's father. If it's only taken this long for Bush to make Republicans look this bad, I feel very optimistic about how much truth the world will see at the end of four years. If we're all still alive.
Jim Beach, Manhattan
Small Times
Re: Russ Smith's 4/2 "Billboard" piece on Maureen Dowd.
When Maureen Dowd wrote that Bush was "disconnected from the culture," she was referring to pieces that she, Gail Collins and Frank Rich did last year when they found out Bush was unfamiliar with the HBO show Sex in the City.
I wonder how many middle-aged men have ever heard of this show, much less watched it. I thought ernst menchen were not supposed to watch tv shows like teens. Is this what passes for culture at The New York Times? What's next, a Stephen Holden exegesis of The Sopranos or Will & Grace?
Tom Phillips, Manhattan
Washington Depths
MUGGER: I want you to know that there is someone up here in Alaska who appreciates your frequent reports on the adventures of the MUGGER family at multitudinous vacation spots (4/4).
By the way, I have several hundred really great slides of my family at the Waikiki Hilton, the Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, etc. I would be glad to send them to you, but I'm not sure that you would really want to waste your time looking at them (do you see where I'm going with this?).
By the way, I see that you consider Puerto Vallarta a wonderful place to visit. I can't agree, but I can understand your viewpoint. I grew up in a pestilent abscess in that armpit of Manhattan known as Washington Heights, and, if I still lived in New York City, I would consider Buffalo "a great place to visit."
Jack Gold, Prudhoe Bay, AK
This Guy Again
MUGGER: So it looks like your old prediction that Brill's Content would fold was not only all wet but wrong. Not only has Brill's Content not folded, but it has expanded with its purchase of Inside.com. I am pretty sure you are aware of this development. I read your column every week in New York Press and I just find it kind of amusing how often your predictions about everything from politics to baseball are wrong. I think you should take my advice and stop making predictions, because it's making you look foolish. (Well, your right-wing views already have accomplished making you look foolish, but why compound the problem with predictions that are almost always wrong?)
Luis Vazquez, Manhattan
He Believes that Children Are the Future
MUGGER: Just read N.S. Heftler's 4/4 letter in "The Mail" and your reply to it. I don't mean to pile on, but Heftler is right, nobody cares about Junior. You can continue to be self-indulgent, but you're the one who's constantly expressing opinions about good writing and bad writing.
Ray Martin, Ridgefield, CT
Blast Tahiti
MUGGER: Your 4/4 comments in support of selling arms to Taiwan are almost as misguided as your belief in the ability of the Bosox to reach the World Series. At least the Sox won't get us into a military skirmish, a war that could never be defined as being in our country's interests. The island of Taiwan belongs to China, much as Palestinians have the right to return to their homes. The sooner those with their heads in the sand?clearly too busy playing soldier with neato gadgets from the U.S. military?wake up and smell the paucity of their positions, the sooner the world will be better off.
Bush's vaunted foreign policy team can't seem to keep the W, as decent a fellow as he may be, from acting like a bold arrogant son of a bitch. Why on Earth?if we like the Chinese enough to give them access to the WTO?are we sending spy planes to monitor their military? Because we made Cold War promises to a little country founded by the losers of China's civil war?
Makes not an iota of sense. How insulting can we be? We like you, but we're gonna spy on you because a certain group of people who lost won't give up? Remember Britain's misguided promises and the trouble it got them and the rest of the world into? If W keeps up on this course of action, we'll find ourselves in a military situation that could have easily been avoided before September. What's next for Team Bush? An invasion of Tahiti?
Our foreign policy would be much more effective if we gave the State Dept. as much money as we give the military. By emphasizing negotiations instead of bombing, we might be able to achieve effective relations not only with Europe but with the rest of the world. We shouldn't ignore Europe in order to build stronger relations with the rest of the world.
Name Withheld, via Internet
Soft Sell
MUGGER: Enjoyed your 4/4 column.
Regarding your brief mention of the campaign finance joke that just passed in the Senate: through one mechanism or another the bill will fail and soft money will continue to flow to the parties, but with one significant difference?the Republicans will once again pull way ahead of the Democrats in donations.
Easy prediction. Why? After years of Clinton administration corporate shakedowns, influence peddling and overnight stays?all for cash?the Democrats will see their take drop significantly because they no longer have enough power to instill the fear it takes for a shakedown (Clinton and his brazenness are gone), they don't have as much influence to peddle (or secrets to sell) and the Lincoln Bedroom is no longer available. Parity in soft money donations to the parties will become the "good old days" for the Democrats, and the Republicans will again pull way ahead in the soft cash department and maintain or increase their hard money lead.
In retrospect, the Democrats will wish they had not played both sides of the issue and instead wish they had made a serious attempt at reform. This will, once again, cause them to run it up the flagpole, with the broadcast media cheerleading all the way.
A year from now, if I'm wrong, I'll say "shit." If I'm right I'll smile and gloat.
Gary T. Chapline, Houston
Take the Train, Dougie
Andrey Slivka: The SUV craze ("Billboard," 3/29) stems from the government's mandatory mileage limitations on passenger cars. People started buying trucks once the government made it impossible for them to buy big cars. The solution is not to add another layer of regulations, but to get rid of the mileage regulations altogether. Big cars may be gas hogs, but they use less gas than trucks. QED.
Douglas B. Levene, Wilton, CT
Devine Justice
Toby Young's rather silly but misleading Northern Ireland article in your "Taki's Top Drawer" of 3/14 refers to the reason for the occupation of the northeast corner of Ireland by British troops as the protection of the Irish Catholic inhabitants of the area. English troops are in Ireland solely to protect the status quo in a nation divided by the threat of force and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people.
If Young's English friends are turned off by the mention of Northern Ireland, as Young alleges, it's more likely because of the feelings of shame and guilt for centuries of cultural genocide, ethnic cleansing and religious persecution against the Irish people.
Young's article reeks of the smug hypocrisy of the English upper classes who, even in this enlightened age, can't understand why other people are entitled to civil and political rights and a country unoccupied by foreign troops.
Joseph D. Devine, Manhattan