Tama and Harlem Donuts; Philip K. Dick; Tabb's Predictable Hate Mail; White's Predictable Hate Mail; High School Shootings and High School Nights
The "Billboard" section of the online New York Press is excellent. It's relatively new, right? Anyhow, please keep it up.
Eric Owens, Chicago
Romantic Fragments
I picked up a copy of your paper because I saw Jim Knipfel's cover story was on Gregory Corso ("Underground Saints: Roger Richards and Gregory Corso," 2/28). I love Gregory. He's my favorite poet.
Anyway, as I sat at H&R Block doing my taxes I flipped through the rest of the paper. I noticed in "Taki's Top Drawer" an article written by Claus von Bulow. How charming. Claus submits his writings and Taki publishes them. After reading the article, I only found the last couple of paragraphs interesting. Claus wrote of his belief in God. Oh, really? Claus von Bulow is a God-fearing man?
No, he didn't say that. He just expressed his belief in the divine. That really fascinated me. I would like Taki to print more articles by Claus von Bulow. I want to hear all about his belief in God. I believe in God, too. Especially when I read that Gregory's ashes will be buried next to Shelley and Keats in Italy, and I get a check from H&R in three weeks.
Lori Landino, Manhattan
Christen to the Lions
Been a long time between drinks, but I am compelled to comment on Christen Clifford's pretend article "Sex & Violence" ("First Person," 3/7). That she is a poor writer is obvious?no style or substance, no wit or point of view, just dreary ramblings of one grade-school cliche after another ("I like to play games..."; "I don't love him, I love the sex"). What struck me was her cast of characters. I haven't missed the paper since 1995, and I think her last contribution was at least a year ago, maybe two. And nothing has changed! Still playing both ends against the middle, still neck-deep in her twentysomething angst, still a clueless loser with nothing to say. An Amy Sohn wannabe, but without the charm, sexiness or vulnerability?that's what made Ms. Sohn's writings remarkable, month after month.
You wasted a half a page when you could've said the TV Guide version?"I like to be dominated by men in bed." And if that's all you have to say, you'd be better off writing captions for the Amsterdam News.
Robert Liebowitz, Queens
Bloody Valentine
I found Armond White's review of The Caveman's Valentine ("Film," 3/7) a condescending attack on Kasi Lemmons tinged with jealousy and contempt. It was utter balderdash. My advice to White would be to work on his own writing, which indeed could use the attention.
Ed Gooding, Brooklyn
Master of Reality
John Strausbaugh: I love Philip K. Dick ("Publishing," 2/28). He was like the Steely Dan of pulp sci-fi. His ideas, as you point out, were surreal and still make me think about the nature of reality. The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch was his best work, in my humble opinion.
Pete Wright, Dallas
Lord of the Rings
Dear Tama Janowitz: Great article on donuts ("Food," 2/28), but what a shame that our donut-loving ex-president is moving close to a recently closed donut shop called George's. At 45 cents per, those donuts made the current contenders seem second-rate. To bike up to 125th St. on a Saturday and stand in a long but fast-moving line was a treat for the day. I think George has retired, but what a loss for those of us who appreciate a good donut now and then.
Ben Bean, Manhattan
Mourning Weeds
MUGGER: It's hard to believe you can even identify Arnold Toynbee (3/7). And I suppose you, like most, want drugs legalized before your children are caught.
Brian A. Perkins Sr., Fort Worth
Russ Smith replies: It's hard to believe Massa Perkins, now pushing 162 years of age, is computer-literate. But it does give me hope that Strom Thurmond can hang on to pass over his South Carolina Senate seat to Lindsey Graham. Yes, I do believe that "soft" drugs, at a minimum, ought to be legalized: Prohibition, as Perkins might recall, was a disaster. Taking marijuana out of the underground economy, and users out of the jails, would be in the country's financial interests.
Theme from Shaft
Just read George Tabb's latest and greatest ("Why Chicks Can't Rock," 3/7), and it's obvious to me now. If small dicks mean lame licks, then it's no wonder that Furious George sucks.
That's all I have to say.
Kevin Tyler, Manhattan
Don't Drink the Water
Just read "Why Chicks Can't Rock." Please keep George Tabb in the shallow end of the pool.
Larry Schussler, Spring Park, MN
See Ya Next Week, Sweetie
I really can't believe you jerks would run an article called "Why Chicks Can't Rock." After reading so many great interviews and articles by Lisa LeeKing and Tanya Richardson, you stoop so low as to run this totally "anti-woman" story.
What is wrong with you people? What if the story had been titled "Why Negroes Can't Rock" or "Why Catholics Can't Rock" or even "Why the Handicapped Can't Rock"! I bet you wouldn't have run a piece like that! It's a shame you jerks take the whiteboy party line, and it's a disgrace that wimmin like LeeKing and Richardson even appear in the same paper with the likes of George Tabb.
Go away.
Sharon Lehrer, via Internet
You Asshole?Hildegaard of Bingen Rocked
You, George Tabb, you have absolutely no business writing for a publication on music at all. Better you should get a job as Rush Limbaugh's personal assistant/ass-wiper/yes-man (and I use the term "man" loosely).
You obviously only write articles like this to inflame and incite stupidity. Your Howard Stern approach to journalism is not only unoriginal and immature, but also irresponsible. You are not clever, nor are you informed. What you know about music could not fill a thimble, let alone a newspaper. If you can't hear the genius of Bonnie Raitt, Terri Lyne Carrington, Marian McPartland, Sarah Vaughan, Billie Holiday, Nancy Wilson, Cindy Blackman and countless others?well, then you just can't hear, period. And if you've never heard of any of these people, then it's no wonder that you're an idiot. Your knowledge of music, culture and art is nonexistent. Perhaps instead of writing editorials you should try reading a few, assuming you can read at all. You obviously can't hear. Maybe you could go back to writing for your last employer, the Ku Klux Klan. These people share your ignorant bias and immature, self-righteous, overrated opinions. Not to mention your bigotry.
Please do yourself and the rest of humanity a favor: put down your pen and go back to jerking off your tiny little penis till your band finally "makes it." (Read: never.)
Gregory Tupper, Seattle
I Wish My Brother George Were Here
George Tabb: You're an asshole. It seems to me you have a problem with your boyfriend. I guess he doesn't give good head like a girl. Or you're bitter 'cause you can't rock. There are enough girl bands out there to prove you wrong.
Get some therapy.
Name Withheld, via Internet
Warts and All
Does George Tabb never get laid? From the sound of the article, he spends way too much time jerking off and not enough time really listening to the music that's out there. Good Lord, man, stop before you go blind.
Beccie Lyon, Decatur, GA
Shut Up, You Pussy
That you guys are hard up for articles is now completely apparent. George Tabb's "Why Chicks Can't Rock" is about as absurd as anything I've ever come across.
There is something to be said for publishing an article because the writer's point of view is challenging and worthy of debate, but this guy is a fucking idiot, and obviously hard up for a real woman. I attempted to give your paper another go, but it looks as though I can't even leave you guys on the back burner.
It's obvious that you have some kind of philosophy about why you've published this man's work, so I won't try to argue for you to give him the boot. But opinions like his are hurtful and completely ignorant and give people bad ideas. It's irresponsible for your paper to publish this work, and it comes off as trying very hard to compete with the Village Voice. "I need to be more than confrontational, I need to piss my readers off so that they come back and get more upset!"
Try a different philosophy, like printing news, or sticking with transvestite classifieds. Those, at least, will drum up business.
John Painz, via Internet
What Now, Little Man?
I have never written a letter to a newspaper before, but after reading George Tabb's article "Why Chicks Can't Rock," I feel that it is my duty as a female, and a human being, to respond to what I feel is dangerous journalism.
When Mr. Tabb says that "chicks can't rock," and then points out, "Women should stay on the sidelines taking pictures or, better yet, giving blowjobs," I feel hurt. Not only as a woman, but as a thinking person who has been degraded by men in the past.
Mr. Tabb's way of thinking is what leads to most of the domestic abuse in this country. Mr. Tabb basically says that women are only good barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. This is a way of thinking I had hoped was left back in the 1950s. Well fuck you, Mr. George Tabb.
Women, throughout this century, have had a long uphill battle, and have won! We even have a woman senator in New York! (The ex-first lady, no less!) So when you publish this trash in your newspaper, you are only trying to set back the clock.
But you know what? You can't. Women are growing stronger and stronger every day, and no matter what George Tabb thinks, we are actually superior to men. So go back to your little boy's club, George Tabb, and laugh it up all you want. We all know what a little man you really are.
Kathy Henderson, Brooklyn
Focus on Families
Dear Andrey Slivka: Please take yourself off into the vast Upper West Side, find a very small hole and crawl into it.
Thank you.
The Monteith Family, via Internet
Andrey Slivka replies: Dear Monteith Family: Eat me
.
Be Cool or Be Cast Out
Andrey Slivka: And your point ("Billboard," 3/8)? Santana High School shooter Andy Williams didn't confront the bullies who badgered him, he stepped into a crowded hallway and randomly selected his victims. The two students killed were shot in the back as they tried to flee the scene. And how much blame for the killer's hazing should the wounded security officer accept?
Nothing very noble came of this episode, I'm afraid. A young man faces a lifetime in prison, a father faces a future filled with painful regrets. Families will mourn for the dead and tv crews will fill out program cards for the next outrage.
I remember being bullied by professionals during my student years. I think the SOBs belonged to the Brotherhood of Scholastic Thuggery union. But the thought of killing them never entered my head as I washed the spit out my hair (violent reaction there was, but the perps were smart enough to attack in packs) or wiped the blood from my face. Living in a two-parent family helped, and a deep faith in God helped more, I suppose.
Is hatred all that's left for a soul with nothing else to lose?
Mark Plasko, Chapel Hill, NC
Yellow Feather
Andrey Slivka, I often agree with you, but when you're wrong, you are breathtakingly wrong ("Billboard," 3/8). In this case, President Bush was exactly right?the punk at Santana High School was a coward. If he had braced the appropriate bullies with his fists or other nonlethal weapon, he would have shown bravery. Instead, he took power and lashed out at weaker individuals, who were anyone and everyone in his line of sight. Also, disturbed and deranged people are not exempted from being cowards. What were your school years like?
Please do your Old West mythology research better. Only a coward would bushwhack, back-shoot or shoot unarmed men and women. Gary Cooper was heroic in standing up?face to face?to an armed gang in spite of his fear. So was Shane. They did not take a knife to a gunfight, but they were armed the same as their adversaries. They did not shoot an unarmed bad guy. And please, Rambo? He struck back at only those who wronged him and then hounded him while trying to kill him.
Of course you realize that these are not real people. Kind of hard to tell, since you did not cite any real-life situations involving non-cowards. And, Andrey, gratuitous Bush-bashing grows tedious, regardless of the quality of the writer.
Otherwise, loved the piece, and especially "Billboard." Great idea!
Wallace Watford, Fruitland Park, FL
The Shootists
Nice comparison by Andrey Slivka ("Billboard," 3/8). So Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are Butch and Sundance now? Get a grip. And watch Shane and On the Waterfront again to brush up on the difference between having your home, freedom and livelihood threatened, and getting your lunch money stolen.
Peter Browne, Manhattan
In a Penn State
Thanks, Neal Pollack, for getting Philadelphia straight ("New York City," 2/28). Yes, I understand David Faris' point ("The Mail," 3/7) and his boosterism about the American city with the greatest inferiority complex, but what makes living here in the City of Brotherly Whatever so endearing is the strange dichotomy between fine art and low class we deal with on a regular basis.
It seems the two have struck up a weird relationship: premier art museums, world-class bars and restaurants and prestigious orchestras intermix with Wing Bowls, teenage miscreants out of control on South St., cheesesteak, soft pretzels and scrapple. Unlike Chicago, you won't see young professionals dressed like refugees from a cellular phone commercial grasping their Palm Pilots on the elevated; the clientele is more the fat drunk hairy guys with five days' growth eating hoagies while drinking God-knows-what out of a paper bag. Our women are sophisticated in the sense that they know more about the last episode of Survivor and the latest Fabio romance novel than the coolest show in town or the hippest theater happening, and are slathered in makeup that makes Tammy Faye look humble in comparison.
Yes, we're the salt of the earth but we've got first class if you want it, and goddamn it, we're "keeping it real." Neal, next time avoid the typical faux, affected breakfast nooks like Carmen's and Morning Glory, and stick with the tried and true, like South Philly's Melrose Diner or the Broad Street Diner. You'll love the prices, the pies and the atmosphere, which screams Sopranos.
Lee Schiller, Philadelphia
Bully Rider
I have a few comments on Taki's "Bully Warfare" piece ("Top Drawer," 2/28). I am not intending to dispute the cruelty of the recent NATO bombings or the Brits' incineration of Dresden?those are all valid points that I wholeheartedly agree with.
However, what's with him idolizing what he calls the Germans' "gallant" warfare in WWII? Doesn't he think that had Hitler had the means to inflict maximum damage on the English civilian population, he would have utilized them? Just take the V-1, a weapon so crudely inaccurate that the only possible target for it was the sprawl of London. Thankfully, Germany was no longer in the position to launch them in large enough numbers to pose any real threat?and there was also the Vergeltungswaffe's slowness, which made shooting them down relatively easy.
Taki's glorification of Germany's war effort makes me think I'd be confronted with a display of Nazi and Wehrmacht memorabilia if I ever were to visit his home.
Boris Hladek, Secaucus, NJ
Civil War
Taki's right in his 2/28 piece. Although there is no such thing as gallant war and no one fights gallantly, the bombardment of Dresden must be called a war crime. If you deliberately kill civilians, you are a criminal, no matter what nationality you are. Just because someone killed another person, you do not go and kill his children and wife. Otherwise you are no different from a murderer.
Michael Sepp, Tallinn, Estonia
As He Sees It
Re: Taki: Sadly, he speaks the truth. I just hope you guys don't "Sobran" him.
Scott Johnson, Kansas City, MO
Black Tuesday
I respect New York Press, and used to read it regularly when I was living in New York. And I also respect the fact that good columns are often the most inflammatory. But reading Taki's 3/7 response to Conrad Black's (unfortunately hyperbolic) charge of anti-Semitism, I was struck by how deeply disingenuous Taki was being. Basically, he included an entirely groundless claim in his column?the fact that the Mossad tipped Rich off about American efforts to apprehend him. Taki might be right, but there is no reason to think so other than his own prejudices. He himself admits he was just "speculating." But nowhere in his original column was there the slightest hint of the tentative, the hypothetical. Taki's claim was phrased as fact, and that is simply irresponsible. Given the sensitivity of the issue, he should have had the courage to admit to his own imaginings.
Ben Soskis, Washington, DC
Black Sabbath
The most troubling thing about Conrad Black's attack on Taki was his contention that Taki "uttered a blood libel against the Jewish people" by suggesting that the Jews "glory in the murder of innocent or mischievous children" in Palestine.
Given that Taki did not accuse the Jews of murdering anyone, he certainly cannot be charged with maintaining that they glory in the murder of Palestinian children. It is, rather, Black himself who brought up the issue of the "murder of innocent...children" after mentioning the blood libel, or ritual murder accusation.
Curiously, Black's linkage of the blood libel with the situation in Palestine comes during a period when the accusation has resurfaced in the Arab press both in Syria and Egypt, as has been reported and denounced by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. It is most disturbing that Conrad Black, who protests very vigorously against what he perceives to be Taki's anti-Semitism, should see a relationship between the ritual murder accusation and the Israeli Defense Force's killing of rock-throwing Arab children.
Kevin Beary, Manhattan
In the Neighborhood
I read your paper on the Internet, and enjoy all of it, but especially the occasional references to Bensonhurst. I grew up there, left as soon as able for college and have never been back, except to visit.
In December of 1999, Andrey Slivka wrote ("New York City," 12/22/99) about walking through the Bensonhurst streets at night to enjoy the holiday lights. I did the same thing so many times, when it was very cold, still and quiet. On the side streets, it could be as quiet as the woods. My favorite block was 62d St. between 18th and 19th Aves. At the corner of 19th Ave. there was a house with a front and side yard, a real rarity, surrounded by a chainlink fence. The same dog was there every night, always out, running down the fence with me as I walked by.
Thirty years ago, but it's one of my best Christmas memories.
I got a laugh out of Ned Vizzini's more recent article about "The Next Bensonhurst" ("New York City," 2/28). Gelato stands! Run for the hills. A reminder that Bensonhurst was a ghetto, filled with repulsive people, as far as most of the country was concerned. Not too strong a word. My wife and children think it's another world, but liked the bakeries and the food. Would they live there? Well, they think it's great that Dad came from such an interesting place, but...
That's all. Just moved to write because these articles provoked a personal response. Keep it up.
John Brescia, Colorado Springs, CO
Canadians Agree: Rock Critics Are Losers
Re: Mike Doughty's 2/21 "Music" piece about rock critics: Ummmmmm, excuse me while I clean out the space between my ears: Rolling Stone and MTV News as sources of informed music reporting?
With the exception of that one glaring break with reality, Doughty wrote something pretty self-evident, but that still needing saying. It's too bad I can't swallow that accolade about the biggest supporters of corporate rock known to humanity.
Ken Birchall, Ottawa
Say It Ain't So, Lou
Re: Alexander Cockburn's 2/28 "Wild Justice": Is he sure Hamilton Jordan peered down the dress of the Egyptian ambassador's wife, and not the dress of Sadat's wife Jehan?
I wish Cockburn and his fellow slippery relativists would leave the "other kids did it!" Clinton defense back in grammar school, where it belongs. Critics should review things in themselves and not assign contexts. Leave that to the reader.
A request: please consider a requiem for Riverrun, gone dark, dead, along with Tribeca. I spent my last two birthdays there, and also enjoyed one of your New York Press staff parties as an unintended guest (Lou let me eat). At this moment, I appreciate capitalism less than usual.
John Foster, Brooklyn
The Drugs Don't Work
MUGGER: You've led a very sheltered life (3/7).
If I didn't realize that gifted people like you influence unformed minds, I would just enjoy your skills and discount your attitudes. I've lived 85 years and have helplessly watched people I love suffer the consequences of self-indulgent lives. I have a 41-year-old grandson whose brilliant mind has eroded under the influence of drug use. He is very unhappy.
I know a young woman who believed casual sex had no consequences, no sexual diseases, no pregnancies?too late. I know of many more wasted lives. You were one of the lucky survivors. I'm sure that you can tell that I believe that a casual, uncaring society that has no respect for anyone or anything does contribute to wasted lives. Do you have an answer for me, an excuse, a remedy?
Hester Nichols, Dewey, OK
Those High School Nights
MUGGER: Your 3/7 column took me back to high school. While you remember your bouts of drunkenness and debauchery with fondness, I view my moments of drug-induced stupor with revulsion. Indeed, you fail to see the human wreckage that immature use of excess drugs accomplishes. I am sure that if you look back into even your extended family, you will find lives that have been lessened by substance abuse or by the moral turpitude that was learned during the Summer of Love.
I have seen the bastards of midnight liaisons pushed from place to place. I know adults who at 50 are just beginning to take responsibility for their consumption of mind-altering substances. I have seen families abandoned as idolaters worship themselves.
The cost of our muddy thinking during the 60s continues to plague our culture. There is still the perception that we can make up the rules as we go along. We believe all truth is relative and that the end justifies the means. We are so incredibly self-indulgent.
Jason Stewart, Bozeman, MT
Barbour Uncivil
I am a Vietnam veteran. I find it particularly hypocritical to hear Hamilton Jordan criticize the Clinton pardons and hold Carter up to such high moral standards (Alexander Cockburn, "Wild Justice," 2/28). How quickly we forget! Carter pardoned all the draft-dodgers of the Vietnam War. A direct slap in the face to all on the Wall and to all who served their country during that time. Building a couple of houses doesn't make up for that act.
Mike Barbour, Naperville, IL
Arbor Day
MUGGER: Your piece on the English teacher (3/7) brings back memories. As a graduate of J.E.B. Stuart (speaking of politically incorrect names) in the early 70s, I remember a similar tragedy in which a student was killed in a car accident. His head was crushed as he poked his head out of speeding car, which was too close to a tree.
As a resident of northern Virginia, growing up, kids drinking and smoking dope was standard operating procedure. Why do parents seem to forget their own pasts while demonizing the present? There is no doubt that today's kids enjoy drinking, whoring and drugs, just like their parents did a generation ago.
Which brings me to a pet peeve. As a father of two daughters, I am amused about talks of "binge drinking." The same adults who used to "tie one on" now worry about kids doing the same thing. I do not want my daughters to engage in excessive drinking or drugs, but with one child leaving college shortly for the real world and the other getting ready for college, I just hope for common sense. Somehow they will survive, just as we did. (Of course, these universities that are doing everything to stop binge drinking also approve of sexual experimentation by encouraging sexual liaisons of all sorts. Coed dorms, various sexual organizations given free rein, condoms freely available from the local health center?you get the point. Call it hypocrisy.)
Tom Donelson, Marion, IA
Charles in Charge
MUGGER: I usually loathe your stuff, but I found myself in general agreement with you with regard to Charles Murray's spew of last week and elsewhere (3/7).
In particular, he ignored the venerable history of hypocrisy of the social code: many a "gentleman" was got out of a jam by an abortionist or a bit of money or a beating after having "ruined" a maid, often Irish or otherwise barely white?and of course, using a woman in a black brothel with results short of death or severe injury was below the radar entirely, and when a lad got a bit careless there was usually a friendly judge around.
In fact, outright bribery?for example in the acquisition of contracts for supplying forts on the frontiers or during the Civil War (on both sides)?was considered a reasonable part of a respectable business.
And of course, this might veer too left for your tastes, but let us not forget the excellent manicures and respectable dress of the men who ordered genocide of the natives of our West.
Murray weeps for the death not of morality but of mere convention, not of consideration but vain politesse. Were he judged in each by the second of these rather than the first, this master of hateful notions couched in pleasant words might come off quite the worse, so it is of no surprise that he should fear the erosion of these shallow masks.
M. Turyn, Watertown, MA
French Kiss
MUGGER: Re: Charles Murray's doozy (3/7): "When the ship went down, one put the women and children into the lifeboats and waved goodbye with a smile."
I read that and I thought immediately of someone's remark?it was Noel Coward, I believe?that every time he went abroad he went on a French ocean liner, because there was none of that nonsense about women and children first.
Steve St. Clair, via Internet
Wagon the Dog
MUGGER: Either you have fallen off the wagon, or I've lost all sense of value. I'm betting on the former. Since the election, "ash" has fallen and settled, and you've become a facsimile of yourself. Where have the flavor, spice and insight gone?
Never mind the effort. I'd be glumly satisfied with a decent repeat, perhaps something that mattered?
Russ, you disappoint far more than I can say. Life goes on and you write about buying coffee and personal Kodak moments involving baseball. Where is your wallet?
Pardon me, but we all have stories that could warm even Hillary's heart. Who cares? Write, Russ, don't act like an older version of Stephen King's narratives. I'll be old enough to become "nurturing" when I get there. In the meantime I'll thank you not to grease the rails.
Dennis Dwyer, Syracuse, NY
Warning: Steep Grade
Andrey Slivka defends grade inflation ("Billboard," 3/2) on the grounds that it could "encourage the intelligent young amateurs who make up...student bodies to experiment intellectually, which they can't do when they're concerned with affixing numerical values to intellectual work."
While Slivka is talking primarily about, as he puts it, "elite liberal arts colleges," the whole point of those who complain about grade inflation is that it tends to lower standards everywhere. To the extent these critics do focus on the Harvards of the world, it's because what's accepted at Harvard will inevitably become acceptable at the thousands of nonelite liberal arts schools that ape Harvard, or at least ape the next school up the food chain toward Harvard. And, unlike Slivka's little Columbia group, the students in the broad middle of the academic aptitude band may not be so willing to abide by the kind of gentlemen's agreement Slivka was lucky enough to reach with his students, whereby they threw themselves into the work diligently in exchange for not having to worry about grade-grubbing.
But even in the handful of top schools, or honors programs, within which Slivka's optimistic premises might hold true, is there no cause for concern in de facto absolving students at leading schools of accountability for their work product? The point isn't that grades (or SAT scores, or anything) can ever be a true yardstick of intellectual attainment, especially in the liberal studies; rather, they're used because they're the least worst yardstick we have. The freshmen will figure out in their dorm-room bull sessions that everything's relative, man; it might be useful to remind them that even in this indisputably relativistic world, like it or not, they will repeatedly be subjected to subjective evaluation claiming the mantle of objectivity?not least if they pursue a future in academia itself.
Also puzzling is Slivka's somewhat circular condemnation of the careerist mindset of the play-it-safe, grade-obsessed mediocrities?which he proposes to remedy by using grade inflation to assure students that they'll get a grade good enough not to hurt their...career prospects. The kids who have real intellectual curiosity will exercise it?even if this means taking a mediocre grade, or going through the motions in class and exploring their interests independently, just as there is never a shortage of pre-meds, say, even though organic chemistry is notoriously tougher (and more potentially dangerous to the GPA) than all the courses in the sociology and elementary education departments combined.
For years, taking a "gentleman's C" was a de facto compromise available to (among others) those who were bright but whose interests were too diffuse or prone to sidetracking, or whose thinking was too out of synch with the rut of the professor's thought, to conform with great success to the syllabus. Presumably, career-oriented beigeists would not have availed of this option, as a C just doesn't cut it in the power elite. But by creating a kind of gentleman's B+, grade inflation opens the door to allowing not just wool-gathering young intellectuals, but also the resume-polishing suckers-up in training, to skate through with little work (at least in some of their classes), and still remain in the running for that all-important 3.5-3.6 GPA.
I recall Slivka years ago, in touchingly naive fashion, deploring Great Books programs on the grounds that they would unnecessarily limit the literary range of students who might otherwise read far more than the 100 books on the curriculum list?this despite the fact that 50 percent of American college graduates probably haven't read 100 books of any kind since entering college. Slivka is obviously someone who loves reading and ideas (an "intellectual," if he must). Does he really think that the small minority of people who are like him got that way through the adoption of this or that academic policy in some goofy Ivy League school? How much more credible it is to conclude that the intellectually voracious elite whom he confesses to admiring could have turned out that way, and would have read much of what they read and thought much of what they thought, without ever attending college at all?
Academic policy has to be made for (and Kurtz and other critics are arguing with an eye toward) the majority. For the majority of college students I've met recently, even at many U.S. News' top 20 schools, reading as many as 100 fairly sophisticated books, and being bullyragged into doing their homework with the cudgel of a not-too-inflated bell curve, would be progress indeed (and, not incidentally, might provide just a few sloggers the academically rigorous foundation or curiosity to look independently into some of the less-trodden paths wherein may lie the more interesting questions and answers).
Stephen Huerta, Manhattan
The World is Too Much with Us
Thoroughly enjoyed Scott McConnell's 2/21 commentary ("Taki's Top Drawer") on U.S. foreign policy. I couldn't agree more with McConnell's call for a more humble American presence in the world. If only McConnell had pressed Patrick J. Buchanan to emphasize this important issue in his 2000 campaign instead of his ludicrous trade ideas, the notion of a dissenting "Old Right" third party, based loosely on classical liberal economics and traditionalist cultural and philosophical nostrums, might now be viable.
Other than to heap praise on Mr. McConnell's insight and writing skills, I do want to take exception to his portrayal of Paul Wolfowitz's vision for U.S. foreign policy. Mr. McConnell writes: "The point was a forward strategy to prevent any other country from becoming a rival to the United States anywhere in the world."
By using intemperate language of this sort, McConnell weakens the power of his argument. He seems to suggest that Wolfowitz advocates an explicitly imperialistic militarism for the U.S.: that it seeks to humiliate and bully its rivals and exert its dominance through confrontation if necessary. I believe that this is an oversimplification that does not do Wolfowitz justice. My sense is that Mr. Wolfowitz is actually putting forth the notion of a "pax Americana," a world peace (or world order if you will) enforced by the unchallenged might of the U.S. armed forces, buttressed by its willingness to bear the cost, in treasure and life, of even the most far-flung and ludicrous adventures to secure that peace. In this sense, the policy is not expansionist or particularly self-interested, as McConnell seems to suggest. Rather, its weakness derives more directly from a twisted utopianism.
To a degree, the "pax Americana" conceit is not entirely without merit. I think it is fair to say that we all seek a peaceful world. But, to the extent that this desire is embodied in a utopian militarism that energetically imposes our vision of an appropriate political, economic and social architecture, the goal is ultimately self-defeating and indeed dangerous. As in all utopian philosophies (e.g., socialism), it is bound ultimately to achieve the converse of its goal: war, international instability and collective insecurity. Consequently, it is important that Mr. Wolfowitz's theories be vigorously criticized. But we make no progress if we suggest that the underpinning of this approach is an urge toward imperialist or hegemonic domination. It is not, and suggestions to the contrary are unhelpful.
Hope this engenders some thought.
Daniel J. Hogan, Worthington, OH
Raggedy Andy
Andrey Slivka's right ("Billboard," 3/8) that "coward" is not the right word to use for Andy Williams (although it does turn out that he shot both his victims in the back). But I recall just a few months ago Bill Clinton calling the USS Cole suicide bombers "cowardly" too?when obviously they were anything but. As it happens, both these acts were (1) wicked, (2) depraved and (3) uncivilized. But the first two words imply a firm sense of morality that it would be silly to expect from a politician, and how many Americans would even understand the third? Sure, "cowardly" is a also risky word for a politician to bring up, but it's not too judgmental; most people know, vaguely, that cowardice is bad, but don't feel pressed to decide whether they themselves are cowards; and so apparently it's become the word to use in place of "undesirable" or "really bad." Sort of like "doubleplusungood."
Just another example of the everyday, non-compulsory doublespeak gently introduced into the language not by conservatives, but by the creeping left. And Iraq has a million-man army. Wretched, sure?little, no.
Isaac Meyers, via Internet