Caldwell's a Pod; More Armond White Lovin'; Reader Clashes with Taylor; Laffs Abound on the "Daily Billboard"; Signorile's Got Bennett over a (Pork) Barrel; More...

Christopher Caldwell first showed his customary expertise by assuring us that Tom Daschle would be running for president within a couple of weeks ("Hill of Beans," 1/8). He went on to inform us that Americans would laugh Joe Lieberman off the stage if he were to run for president because of Lieberman's nefarious dealings in Florida. While Lieberman will certainly, promptly and deservedly be laughed off the stage, does Caldwell really believe that it will have anything to do with Florida? Does he get paid for this shit?

Terry Benoit, Manhattan

Doesn't Sound Sarcastic...

Happy New Year! Armond White is easily the most insightful, provocative and uncompromising film critic since Pauline Kael.

Tony Zaza, Hoboken

He Prefers to Listen to Cheap Trick

Judging from J.R. Taylor's snotty poem on the table of contents page ("Billboard," 1/1), it's obvious that he didn't know much about Joe Strummer.

John Hatch, Trumbull, CT

The Coulterish Caldwell

Not since Ann Coulter suggested we invade Arab countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations to Christianity have I seen as offensive a statement as Christopher Caldwell's ("Hill of Beans," 1/8). He asserts that we were on the same side as Al Qaeda in our actions in Kosovo, presumably because the Albanians in that region are Muslim. That's like saying the world's defense of Roman Catholics in East Timor puts us in cahoots with those who perpetrated the Inquisition. For the record, I am an atheist who is hostile to all religion.

Kenneth Hermann, Manhattan

You Do It in an SUV?

Jim Knipfel wrote ("Daily Billboard," 1/6), "Granted, these were cabbies, and therefore susceptible to a particularly virulent strain of the disease (much like people from Connecticut)?one that leaves them suffering from the delusion that they are 'careful drivers,' and that pedestrians somehow deserve whatever they get." This is outrageous slander. I'm from Connecticut, and I've never considered myself a "careful driver." And though I've mowed down many pedestrians in my day, I always consider it a fair and equal sport; in fact, I even wait until they're almost off the crosswalk before I start gunning for them from the other end of the lot. It's extra credit, by the way, if you also take out a carriage full of groceries. So please, stop with the stereotypes.

John O'Connell, Manchester, CT

The 203rd Garbage Division

Jim Knipfel: I laughed out loud at your article on the new law prohibiting drivers from running down pedestrians in Manhattan. I grew up in Manhattan, and it is a miracle that I didn't end my days early under the wheels of a Pakistani-driven Yellow Cab, or a sanitation truck (heavier and more dangerous than most Main Battle Tanks?we should be sending a load of them to Iraq right now!). I have since lived in a good many places?including a few good places, like Alaska?although there is virtually no one up here who knows how to drive. Anyway, I have a theory that there are some places where motor vehicles should be banned (except for emergency vehicles, public transportation and delivery trucks in the wee hours, perhaps). These places include Manhattan below 96th St., the Las Vegas Strip and Waikiki, as far inland as the Ala Wai Canal. Feel free to add to the list.

Jack Gold, Prudhoe Bay, AK

See You in The Resident, Steph

To the editorial pinheads who fired John Strausbaugh: You obviously don't know what you're doing. You better offer really cheap classified rates, 'cause now that's the only reason people are going to pick up the Press. Thanks for taking a really great paper down the tubes.

Stephanie Gutmann, Manhattan

Up the Industry

MUGGER: Thank God for your comments on the jaw-dropping New York Times "Up from the Southern Strategy" Sunday editorial (1/1). I thought it was just me! The editorial could've been written by an arrogant sophomore in the (Univ. of) Michigan daily rant circa 1969: nasty, smug, hermetic and willfully dishonest. Although it would take a book to properly deconstruct the falsehoods trotted out, the idea that anyone who questions opposition to Charles W. Pickering Sr., or feels affirmative action is worthy of debate, is a racist, seems incredible and insulting in a newspaper that I once respected.

Two other inane swipes at Republicans: 1)that social progress?unspecified, as usual?will be a "challenge given Washington's obsession with Iraq" and 2) the administration seems bent on "industry-friendly policies on taxes, energy and the environment," indicate a serious detachment from where the rest of us live. Wake up, Howell/Gail, before you become as irrelevant as Bill Clinton: Iraq is the enemy, Industry is not.

MUGGER, please keep up your excellent column.

William B. Huber, Manhattan

Clinton's Blown Job

In Mike Signorile's column ("The Gist," 1/1) he wrote that Bill Bennett "rants at Americans every chance he gets." Bennett rants at people who happen to be Americans, mainly Bill Clinton and those who still support him even though they are supporting a serial adulterer who lied under oath and obstructed justice. That's what defines him and that's his legacy. No American deserves to be ranted at more than the ex-president. Many of his so-called accomplishments were cyclical, believe me, and he is also an idiot. Any president, and I am not talking about the CEO of Kmart but the president of the United States of America, who thinks a 22-year-old intern, young enough to be his daughter, will keep performing fellatio on him (more than three dozen times in the Oval Office) and keep their little secret, is indeed an idiot. Thank the Lord that Bennett keeps reminding us of those sordid facts. I have seen Bennett on Fox News; I didn't know he also appears on CNN. That was the only good news in Signorile's biased and absurdly partisan rant.

D.A. Powers, Manhattan

Less Is More

Mike Signorile: Your column was dead on-target ("The Gist," 1/1). I wonder if you have thought of expanding this line of reasoning? Namely, if birth control is immoral (pleasure without natural consequences), why isn't diet food immoral? After all, most American foodaholics use it to eat twice as much, not to lose weight. And, even if they do use it to lose weight, they still get twice as much pleasure as they deserve. I'm sure you can do a better job than I of hoisting these humbugs on their own petard.

Patrick Devaney, Haverhill, MA

Yeah, Mike, Beat It

Mike Signorile: What a liberal diatribe! I read it as part of the Lucianne column. Thank heavens we now have the Internet, talk radio and Fox News so we do not have to listen to or read this rotgut liberalism. Go live in Cuba, China, Russia, Iraq or another totalitarian socialist country.

Mary Grimes, Omaha

For the Love of Avery

Jim Knipfel: Avery Schreiber was a great guy ("Daily Billboard," 12/31). I used to be the theater critic for the Palm Beach Post, and Burt Reynolds, who owned a theater in south Florida, hired Schreiber to be in Forum. And I met him and instantly fell in love. When it turned out that Schreiber was hired by the guy who had just bought Burt's theater to be the artistic director, it led to some of the closest talks I have ever had about comedy. He knew everything. When I had the blind date that makes your forehead soft because you are banging it on the table, the only thing I could think of that helped was, "Avery will think this is funny." There was just something about him. He always reminded me of my mother-in-law. Just the same look at the world, the same spark. He was dear. And able to act like he was glad to see me pretty much all the time. I looked forward to learning from Schreiber, or just hanging, watching him audition beautiful women. I'm too young not to be doing this. Anyway, thanks. I loved him like I loved being seven years old.

Peter Smith, St. Petersburg, FL

Sweet Dreams

It was with joy that I at first learned of the sale of New York Press. Maybe this will mean fewer column inches for MUGGER as he settles into retirement. But then this joy was followed by great consternation. Was it worth losing Strausbaugh? No, it was not. I fear that there can be no substitute. Goodnight, John.

Jabairu S. Tork, Boston

The Lone Star

MUGGER: Please allow a hick from the backwaters of central Texas to give you a tip of the cap for a job well done. Your leadership at New York Press has made that paper the thing I look forward to most every week. Although thousands of miles from the canyons of New York City, I have found the Press, with its wide variety of opinion and subject matter to be the most informative and enjoyable weekly at my disposal. Thank you, and best of luck as you continue your journey. May the blessings of heaven rest upon you and your family.

Tracy Meadows, Brenham, TX

Baking "Beans"

Christopher Caldwell might not speak for the Republican Party but it is apparent what he would "do on the backroads every day" ("Hill of Beans," 12/25). His big problem with affirmative action is "that it fosters racial paranoia." I'm guessing the Jews and Asians who agree with him on this are John Podhoretz and Michelle Malkin. Maybe in future columns the Weekly Standard senior editor can discuss how his big problem with the feminist movement fosters misogynism and his big problem with gay rights fosters homophobia as well.

Ron Brynaert, Brooklyn

Our New Columnist Writes In

I'm thrilled to hear that Lisa Kearns is at the helm. When I worked at New York Press she struck me as super-sharp, always fair and generally just a great person.

I am sorry, though, that Strausbaugh got the ax. He is a good guy and his publishing column was always a good read. He is one of the few media writers in NYC who knows anything about the weird, offbeat and small presses and publications in American.

Has the Press made a statement on why it canned Strausbaugh? If not, please do, as many of us are shocked and bewildered. No doubt thousands of readers would have preferred to see that Hitchens-envying, champagne-socialist hack Alexander Cockburn get the boot instead.

Kevin R. Kosar, Brooklyn

Jillted

So, ex-stripper/dogwalker/wannabe-writer/ filmmaker Jill Morley is jealous of Jim Goad's front page ("The Mail," 1/1). Boo-hoo-hoo. If Ms. Morley ever wrote anything worth reading, she'd perhaps have grounds for complaint. Unlike Little Miss Should-I-or-Shouldn't-I-Sell-My-Eggs-Before-They-Rot?/Should-I-or Shouldn't-I Let-the-Slave-Next-Door-Wash-My-Dishes?, Goad is interesting, provocative and (courtesy of "Answer Me!") known by a wider audience than Morley will ever command. Frankly, Goad can write and readers know it. I doubt anyone would read Morley if she hadn't been a stripper. That aside, the Press has been good to her; the Press gave her film (about strippers!) the only good review of it I read.

Remedios Cruz, Manhattan

Bill Blast

Mike Signorile: Your Bill Bennett commentary was right-on ("The Gist," 1/1)! It took time to write that article. Wish it could be distributed around the nation in local papers. After a rant appearance by the Bennett on Meet the Press with Mr. Potato Head (Tim "Russet" Potato), I phoned the office and in my own rant went on and on about why the Bennett is always on. Said once in a while, but why, time after time? Definitely noticed he was on that program much less. Enough right-wing jackoffs are around that that "liberal bias" crap does not work. Maybe it's time to say overkill on the right-wing bigot crap to curb some of these bigots.

Terrence Abraham, Milford, MI

Dear Mr. Bennett

Whew! Go Mike! I hope you e-mailed your article to him!

Tom Loushe, Keyport, WA

Rauer Exclaims

Mike Signorile: I just read your column on Bill Bennett ("The Gist," 1/1), and am screaming laughing! He is the worst, most pompous, hypocritical and revolting of all the right-wing moralizers. Just hearing his name makes me run screaming from the room! And I must say, as someone who has suffered long-term from an eating disorder, you somehow took the sting out of your bite! It's all about compassion vs. self-righteousness. And what you said was right on the money. Thank you for making my day.

Suzanne Rauer, Harrisburg, PA

Draft Dodgy

MUGGER: Since Rep. Charlie Rangel feels so strongly that reinstating military conscription is the right and fair thing for the United States to do (1/8), I call upon him to do his congressional duty and file a bill to that effect. I'm sure that it would command broad support from his fellow Democrats.

Tim O'Brien, Scituate, MA

Seeing Red

MUGGER: Mark it down: Dubya takes everything except California and DC, 481-57 in the old Electoral College. Why do dumb Democrats even bother?

Don Surber, Poca, WV

Sports Shorts

I see Christopher Caldwell ("Hill of Beans," 1/1) is lamenting the idiocy of the video entertainment at baseball games. Amen. My kids can hardly believe that we used to be able to hear the insects between pitches while watching the Yanks on WPIX. Do you suppose somebody will ever try to market a "retro" sporting event? I would certainly be interested in buying tickets to a two-hour-and-15-minute baseball game, or even better?bring back Eddie Layton for a Rangers game and turn off all the video and rock/disco music.

Ray Martin, Ridgefield, CT

He Refers You to this week's "Hill of Beans"

Typical of the sorry state of American journalists' understanding of economics and finance is the comment of your writer Don MacLeod that eliminating dividend taxes "won't help me a bit" ("Daily Billboard," 1/7).

Let's examine statement-by-statement the misinformation, economic ignorance, logical fallacies and class-warfare bias demonstrated in this completely worthless bit of "journalism." (I might add that he is no more guilty of this than most other journalists. Virtually the entire corps of American journalists have little understanding of economics, and we know what their politics are. I happen to be singling him out because his happens to be the first article on the subject that I clicked on.)

1. "This bit of economic two-stepping takes more than $300 billion over 10 years from the general ledgers and gives it back to the rich." This is typical class-warfare boilerplate: the idea that personal income belongs first to the government ("general ledgers"), and that if taxes are cut, the government is giving people back their money as an act of, what??reverse noblesse oblige? Where was your man educated, the London School of Economics? Please note: People earn income; government taxes it. The government does not earn; it taxes.

2. "The rich are already rich: if they can't stimulate the economy with the fat pots of money they already have, how would giving them even more moolah help them do it?" There is so much ignorance of finance and economics embedded in this single sentence that I don't have time to deal with all of it. So let's zero in on the major problem, which involves a quick review of Capitalism 101: Rich people don't keep their money in mattresses, nor do they keep it in cold storage with their wine collections: they invest it, usually in the stock market because, over several hundred years of experience with shareholder capitalism in this country, they have learned that their money grows fastest when invested in joint-stock companies. (No, not that kind of joint, MacLeod.) When rich people invest more money in the stock market, it tends to rise, which in turn lowers corporations' cost of raising equity capital, incentivizing them to make investments in plants, property and equipment, which in turn employ labor. If government tax and economic policy creates the proper incentives for these things to happen, the economy grows faster, benefiting everyone, including?mirabile dictu!?your intellectually impoverished journalist. (Homework assignment for MacLeod: define equity cost of capital, debt cost of capital and weighted average cost of capital.)

3. "Bush is rehashing the discredited trickle-down theory, first popularized in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan and his economic adviser David Stockman. The results were an immense shift of money to the rich and a drastic increase in the public debt. It took Bill Clinton eight years and the healthiest economy in human history to recover from that Reaganomic train wreck." Here again we have a super-sized helping of class warfare (re-)hashed potatoes. It rests on the false assumption, as per #1 above, that personal income first belongs to the government, whose job it is to redistribute it to poor people. Hence, this twisted logic continues, if rich people are given some of the government's money, that would otherwise go to poor people, it is a "shift." As for the "Reganomic train wreck," MacLeod would do well to recall that the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress for most of Reagan's eight years. Conversely, Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress for most of Clinton's eight years. It is both a logical fallacy and patent misinformation to imply that Reagan, Clinton or any president is the cause of economic health, deficits or surpluses.

4. The President is undoing the benefits of a balanced budget?"cheaper mortgages, enough money to meet obligations to the old, the sick and the young, etc., money for the never-to-end war on terror"?with this ill-advised idea. Here we have a perfect example of economic ignorance. It consists of two parts: First, the canard beloved of Robert Rubin: that a balanced budget creates cheaper mortgages. If MacLeod had simply turned on his television recently, he would know that we currently enjoy the lowest home-mortgage rates in more than 40 years, including those eight years that Clinton was president. It is his burden to explain how this could be possible since, not only is the federal budget not in balance now, but is forecast to be in deficit for several years to come. Perhaps if he were to study the issue, he would discover that there are many complex factors affecting interest rates, of which the federal budget is merely one. A more influential factor in producing the very low interest rates we now have is the fact that the U.S. and much of the world is experiencing the lowest rate of nominal GDP growth since the 1950s. Another is the fact that the federal deficit, as a percentage of U.S. GDP, is actually quite low in the context of recent economic history.

5. "A radical tax maneuver that helps only the privileged classes but penalizes all Americans by burdening them with debts that will take years and years to pay off." Let me dispatch this last boo-boo and then we can all go to bed. More misinformation here. The writer seems to have a view that federal deficits will increase as a result of the Bush plan. How does he know this? He doesn't! This is just an assertion cooked up to support his conclusion. Happens all the time with political types. For example, when the sainted Clinton proposed his one tax cut (on capital gains), the naysayers who voted against it justified their opposition by coming up with the assertion that cutting this tax would reduce the revenues it produces for the government (that is, the money that the government collects from people when they sell a stock at a higher price than they bought it). It turned out that just the opposite happened! The stock market went up, and investors were able to achieve higher capital gains when they sold stock, thus increasing the government's take. Amazing thing, capitalism. But to realize that, you have to understand how capitalism works...or, as the actor hawking brokerage services for TD Waterhouse says on tv: "you have to learn before you can earn." Unfortunately, one does not have to learn anything in order to tax?or become a journalist.

Paul J. Fraker, Westport, CT