ACTUALLY, THAT WAS CHARLES BARKLEY Why in the world did you ...

AT WAS CHARLES BARKLEY

Why in the world did you put Benito Mussolini on the cover of your Best of Manhattan 2004 issue (9/29)? Frankly, I don't know what's scarier, the fact that you did that, or the fact that no one seemed to notice. Please explain.

Jason Hozinsky, Brooklyn

A JEW FOR JESUS REPENTS

New York Press, thanks for having the balls to print what no one seems to have the courage to say in "mixed" company ("Save a Jew, Save Yourself!" 10/13). Personally, I have dedicated years to highlighting this twisted relationship that has been evolving between Jews and Christians in this last decade. (I used to be a Jew for Jesus myself.) The most difficult message to get across to people is that the fruits of this marriage of convenience may very well be a self-fulfilling prophesy of mutual destruction. We may indeed be scratching this story down on parchment years from now, in an effort to preserve the hard-earned lessons on using faith and ideology to pursue our myopic vision of primacy in the pecking order of world religions.

May God help us from ourselves.

Jeffrey Wiener, Manhattan

AND A CAREFUL READER MISREPRESENTS

Hey Mark Ames, thanks for nothing ("Save a Jew, Save Yourself!" 10/13). Despite humiliating the Jewish population of New York City and reminding us of Nazi Germany, a cover story portraying America as a land where, "in the end we are guests in their country. America is theirs, and we'd better get used to it" denies reality. You believe in a conspiracy!

Good luck becoming used to your America! You break it, you own it.

Dean S. Rosenthal, Manhattan

READY KRUEGER

Very much liked "Save a Jew, Save Yourself!," by Mark Ames (10/13). Despite the Evangelicals' deepest hope that all will be obliterated (themselves excepted) within their lifetime, there are corpses aplenty of previous millenarians who just got it wrong. 1000 AD was a big disappointment for those who cared; ditto 2000. Zechariah was Jewish, so his End Times didn't end well either. The Millerites were pissed as hell when 1843 didn't bring it on, and the Jehovah's Witness are at least twice wrong, and counting.

Obviously something has to be done. And though we may allow freedom of religion, let's do so within the following guidelines: "Shut the fuck up and pray."

B.F. Krueger, Bronx

WAIT-THE PRESIDENT?LIED TO US?

It amazes me that Paul Krassner thinks that Dan Rather is the only one to screw up ("Fire Dan Rather," 10/13). Why isn't he upset about the president lying to us?

Maurice Richard, Dover, NH

WAIT 'TIL 2008

Very much enjoying the hacktacular (Matt Taibbi, "Wimblehack: Round 2," 10/13). Leaving Maureen Dowd and David Brooks off the list was a bad move, though. Dowd writes like she's just had six happy-hour martinis and is facing an 8 p.m. deadline. Brooks needs to be driven out into the red-state countryside and left there.

Ben Westhoff, St. Louis, MO

MISSING MILLER

What's this?! Do my eyes deceive me? I was reading with some amusement your announcement of the "Wimblehack!" contest when to my great shock and surprise I noted something not very funny at all-the complete absence of the name of the journalist who has been at the top of my personal Wimblehack list for months now: Judith Miller (10/6). Why not include our dear Ms. Miller?

Yes, I know-the fact that she is already in irons on contempt for refusing to divulge confidential sources to prosecutors investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer's (Valerie Plame) identity might give her unfair advantage.

After all, how can the other, more competent and law-abiding journalists (Mr. Novak notwithstanding, as he was her partner in crime but has somehow managed to evade arrest up to this point) compete with that level of outrageous behavior?

Come on, New York Press, it's only right. Just because Ms. Miller has not done justice to the world of journalism does not mean the world of journalism should be unfair in return. I say add her name in right there with Bob Novak since your rules do seem to make allowance for tag teams such as Hoffmann and Gilmore of the New York Post. You'd be doing us all a great service if you did.

Patty McIntosh, Mendon, VT

PUN? WHAT PUN?

What a disappointment! For years now I have read Matt Zoller Seitz religiously (pun very much intended). I appreciate his superb writing, humble wit and exceptional insight. Unfortunately it seems that his review of Vera Drake got hijacked by his private views and personal bias ("Areligious Cross-Section," 10/6).

Seitz complains that there is no reference to faith, religion or god in the movie. But what does faith have to do with the subject matter, really? What does god have to do with it? The answer depends not only on whom you ask, but also a great deal on which part of the world you live in.

Contrary to what Seitz implies, abortion is not the most divisive social issue of our time. That might still be the case in the U.S., however, most of Western Europe (where Leigh is from) settled the social and legal debate on abortion well over 30 years ago. By choosing science over superstition, most Europeans have decided that abortion is a highly private matter. Society at large-whether it be the state, the community or the tribe-has no right to intrude in the decision-making process.

I appreciated Seitz's admission that he grew up with religion. This confirms something I've always felt for having personally experienced it: People with a monotheist religious background tend to hold their views as universal and to be intolerant of others'. As a result, should they engage in intellectual discourse, their credibility suffers and they can sometimes come across as self-righteous. Seitz unwittingly gives us a demonstration through his particular choice of words: "disingenuous," "dishonesty," "poisons," as well as his hinting that Leigh's silence on religion disqualifies him as a "serious" artist. Going with that theory, one could dismiss half of the 20th century's most celebrated artists.

I wonder if it occurred to Seitz that agnostics and atheists are not only perfectly capable of feeling tormented by the question of when life begins, but that their dilemma is made worse because the pre-cooked answers offered by religion fail to convince them: Their decision has to stand on purely moral grounds. There is enough obscurantism these days to go around in this beautiful country. I pray this is the last time Seitz lets his religious feelings get in the way of brilliant writing.

C.W., Manhattan

Matt Zoller Seitz responds: I'm an agnostic who still wrestles with the very feelings you describe in your letter. I feel religious mainly when I ride the subway, think about my family or watch a great movie by a director like Mike Leigh, an artist whose work has meant everything to me. I have had nothing but praise for Leigh in the past and invoke his name every chance I get. It chills me to think that this particular review gave a you a different impression.

But rereading it, I can see that you're right. I was not really writing about the movie, but working through the anger I felt reading so many American reviews that acted as if the issue has been culturally settled in the United States. None of that relates directly to Vera Drake.

The critics I most admire try to provoke personal responses by walking a tightrope between analysis and introspection. With this column, I fell off the wire. I hope you'll keep reading, though. I would like to win back your faith.

NO LOGO

Just finished reading "And Fuck You Too, Lachlan" on the Page Formerly Known as Page Two (10/6). This reminded me of an equally ridiculous "cease and desist" that the American Red Cross filed against a San Diego hard rock band called the Accident Experiment last summer regarding a red cross they were using as part of their logo. Never mind that the logos looked absolutely nothing alike. The other obvious reasons to leave eluded them as well. In the end, the ARC only ended up embarrassing themselves.

Penny Rene, Los Angeles

QUICK! WE LOST ONE IN BERKELEY!

I just read a column in your paper for the first time, and was astonished that it contained this statement: "As a Russophile, I generally believe that the proper workplace tool for a Pole is a broom or a shovel, not a typewriter" (Matt Taibbi, "Che Go Home," 9/15). Is this actually an alternative paper? It sounds like any other mouthpiece for the rich and ignorant throughout history. Maybe Taibbi is trying to be funny? With Polish jokes? Second graders might be amused, but they probably don't read your paper. I'm not very inclined to now, either.

Christine U'Ren, Berkeley, CA

THE MORE CONSERVATIVE OF TWO EVILS

William Bryk is wrong ("The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush," 8/4). The simple fact is that the president's opponent is the most liberal senator in office and will sell America out to the U.N. and the French, raise taxes and destroy our economy. His argument that President Bush is not a real conservative does not change that. I agree he has not followed Buckley's full definition of conservatism, but he is a hell of a lot closer than John Kerry is. Voting for Kerry is not an option for a true conservative.

Bryk shouldn't try to masquerade as a conservative. He is a liberal and is therefore incapable of understanding conservatism, so his arguments have no ring to our ears. We are not fools like him. Nice try!

Rick Meier, via email

A CROSS OF DEPLETED URANIUM

I read Mark Ames' editorial about Evangelicals, "Save a Jew, Save Yourself!" (10/13). I agree with his article in its entirety. Never in my life did I ever think that I would see the U.S. enter into another religious war. I was naive enough to believe that we had socially evolved to swat away such perversity. For the past two years, I have religiously investigated why we invaded Iraq. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Isn't it ironic that the Puritans are back in charge once again? This time, however, they will destroy our country.

Mary Versteeg, San Antonio, TX

PUN? WHAT PUN? (PT. 2)

Mark Ames has a fundamental (pun intended) misunderstanding of Zionist Christians ("Save a Jew, Save Yourself!" 10/13). I know quite a number of these folks, and their Zionist beliefs have nothing to do with any end-times scenario. I have discovered that there are two chief reasons behind Zionist Christians' love of Israel.

First, from a purely secular viewpoint, Israel is a sane, Western country with a good air force and nuclear weapons smack in the middle of the Middle East. This is viewed as a healthy deterrent to Islamist nut-jobs who want to kill us. Second, from a Biblical perspective, Evangelical Christians take the entire Bible literally, including the bit about God's promise to Abraham about the land of Israel. Hence, they view the Palestinians as trespassers on a deed given by God. That's it. I suppose some may also be motivated by self-interest, in that the Bible also states those who "bless Israel will be blessed"-to badly paraphrase-but I have no knowledge on that point.

The whole scenario of the end times Ames propounded is, by no means accepted by anything approaching the majority of Evangelical Christians. Indeed, I have never seen that theory seriously floated except by anti-Christian bigots (secular and religious) who apparently gleaned it from the inside cover of those awful Left Behind books, which was merely one man's interpretation (albeit a profitable interpretation) of a very difficult read.

David Smith, via email

NOW THAT'S PUNK ROCK!

Hey guys, I noticed in this week's issue you wrote about MTA's future plans for imbedded chips in our hands or forehead in "Fare Hikes Are Only the Beginning" ("Page Formerly Known As Page Two," 10/13).

I, too, was thinking the same thing in 2003 when I wrote and recorded the song "Chip in the Head..."

"I ain't takin' no chip in my head/that lets 'em hear the thing that I said/or see what I've read/no I ain't takin' no chip in my head/that lets 'em know if I'm alive or if I'm dead?"

When will we wise up and realize that sinister forces in our government are creating a police state where all of our movements, actions, deeds and perhaps thoughts will be tracked, analyzed and possibly disseminated to law-enforcement officials?

Fuck the MTA. Oh, and Fuck You Rupert, too!

Dfactor, Manhattan

WHAT'S A FJORD COST?

"It is hard to imagine anything more meaningless, underhanded, vapid, shameless, pointlessly vicious, embarrassing, uninspiring, degrading and even unentertaining than this billion-dollar daily exchange of sneering teenage accusations between the Bush and Kerry camps...Though we're tempted to blame the politicians, it's time to dig deeper" (Matt Taibbi, "Wimblehack!" 10/6).

I agree. But digging deeper doesn't entail the cop-out of blaming the press-though they're certainly part of the problem-but looking at the reasons why the press are able to pass off this obscene spectacle as something of importance, and some of them may even buy it. What kind of mechanisms of control are involved in getting the American public to accept that an exchange of sound bites is a debate and picking between one of two corporate- and party-boss approved candidates is democracy in action? How do you get seemingly intelligent individuals to expect so little from a president that they can enthusiastically support John Kerry (or George Bush)? How long are people going to put up with this shit?

And finally, is there any reason why I shouldn't pack my bags and move to Sweden tomorrow? I hear they have very nice fjords in Sweden.

Matt Wasserman, Portland

PLUG AWAY

I just finished reading Matt Zoller Seitz's film review of Mike Leigh's Vera Drake (10/6). Vera Drake is the story of an English housewife who performs abortions in post-war London. Matt Zoller Seitz makes reference to the fact that during this era of illegal abortion it was possible to get state permission to have one if a woman claimed insanity ran in the family.

It wasn't just in Britain. Many years ago my late mother, who had polio, told me essentially the same thing, but it was right here in the U.S., and it pertained to any woman who was disabled, either by polio, birth defect, blindness or retardation. I have written a play that refers to this practice, but so far the only evidence is anecdotal, and I'm not surprised. Hitler codified such policies with law, but elsewhere it's always been just a dirty little secret. We like to think policies like this were confined to the Nazis, but in fact Hitler got as far as he did for as long as he did because this kind of thinking was acceptable in many countries, including, unfortunately, our own.

I would like to express a sincere thank you to New York Press, Matt Zoller Seitz and of course the director, Mike Leigh, for bringing to light this neglected aspect of abortion history.

Diane Moriarty, Manhattan

PSYCHIC ART DEPARTMENT

It seemed like about half of your "bests" in the "Best of Manhattan 2004" issue were in Williamsburg (9/29). Maybe the issue should have been called "The Best of Williamsburg 2004". And moving ahead to the following week, I'm assuming that it was just a coincidence that Russ Smith's "Bush Muffs" featured a photo of Janet Leigh in the Psycho shower scene (10/6). The issue was probably already being printed when you got the news of Leigh's passing. It's the same sort of eerie coincidence as when the Daily News featured John Ritter in their horoscope section (in anticipation of his upcoming birthday) the day before the paper ran Ritter's obituary.

Richard Fried, Brooklyn

THE CLASSIC: TRADE PRIVACY FOR CONVENIENCE

Once during his long run as mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia said, "I rarely make a mistake, but when I do, it's a beaut." The same can be said for "Fare Hikes Are Only the Beginning" ("Page Formerly Known as Page Two," 10/13).

In your self-righteous, holier-than-thou railing against the new smart card, you omit several facts. First, did you ever swipe away futilely at the turnstile with your MetroCard as the almost mocking turnstile tells you to swipe again and again and again? As your train rumbles into, then out of, the station? Remember when MetroCard was first introduced, and people were given tickets for jumping the turnstiles after dozens of swipes proved futile? If you had, I think you would welcome any innovation to this antiquated system.

Second, your "yuk-a-second" style in this editorial reminds me of possibly one of the biggest rip-offs I ever invested money in, Windows 98 for Dummies, by Andy Rathbone. Almost nothing in the way of substance, but with three jokes a page, increasing the amount of paper in, and price of, the book. Not exactly analogous since New York Press is free, but I do expect the usual fact-oriented, hard-hitting, tell-it-the-way-it-is editorials from you guys-not this ridiculous claptrap.

Third, while technology has admittedly exploded in the last decade, I wish you could tell me about this miracle chip that you keep in your pocket or purse-yet can tell that you're lusting after someone on the train, haven't changed your drawers or can read your mind. Even today's MetroCard can tell you only the subway or bus you've been on, not your every move within the city.

When-and if-you would like to present a logical, cohesive, intelligent argument against the microchip, I'll gladly listen. Until then, I see no reason why not, and would appreciate some substance to go along with the ridiculous jokes. It took four swipes this morning to get past the turnstile at Burnside Ave. on the 4 train.

Nathan F. Weiner, Bronx

MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL

I am absolutely scandalized and offended by the New York Press front page, "Save A Jew, Save Yourself!" (Mark Ames, 10/13). What the fuck do you mean by that? You fucking bigots! I know what the Jewish people are in this country, and they spit on and look down on everyone but themselves. And don't try to fucking deny it! You despicable fucking bastards!

You are a bunch of fucking wankers! Mark Amos, or whoever wrote that article? You bunch of fucking wankers, you don't know your arse from your elbows. You Jews keep going on about how you were almost annihilated, and blah blah blah blah blah blah? I swear to God, I don't know where you're coming from but you are not fooling fucking anyone! And I'm fucking tired of it. Where do you fucking get off saying "save a Jew," as if they save a fucking Mexican, or save a fucking African, or save all the people that are being fucking annihilated all through the world. Why don't you just say, save a Palestinian or save a poor Ethiopian, or save a South African, or save a Sudanese, or save a?

You know what it should be, it should be "Save a Jew, Save Your Fucking Arse" and? I don't know what I wanna say, but it's so inappropriate. And I'm going to get that person, whoever wrote it, and I'm gonna sit that person down and make him explain himself. It makes no fucking sense.

Name Withheld, via voicemail

FUNKY BROTHER

Just read "Eighteen Wheels of Funk" (Steven Psyllos, 8/18). That was quite possibly the best Kool Keith interview I have ever read. Excellent job.

Vic Christopher, Brooklyn