Elvis Has Left the Building; Attacking Taki; Richardson Rules; MUGGER on TV; Where's Sanchez?
Alexander Cockburn tells me that I misrepresented his position in my "Opinion" piece in the 9/6 issue of New York Press. I wrote that, in his 8/16 "Wild Justice" column, "Alexander Cockburn speculated that Bill Clinton was looking forward to 'four years of economic depression under the supervision of George W. Bush.'" I thought this was Cockburn's opinion, but he said he had it on good authority that these speculations are Clinton's. Further, Cockburn assures me he's "never been a worsist." I'm very happy to hear this, and to correct the record as well.
Doug Henwood, Manhattan
Our Far-Flung Alumni, Pt. 2
I can appreciate Matthew DeBord's lament ("Food," 10/4) regarding the stupidity of consumers not being able to buy any damn wine they please due to onerous, ridiculous, antiquated laws.
However, things ain't so bad on the Web. Surf by www.AlcoholReviews.com and you can shop for hundreds of wines and spirits. No, it isn't quite as homey as your corner liquor store, but more than likely the selection is better and bigger.
Besides, there's no need to lament that specialty shops are a-dying. There will always be folks who want to shop by actually going to a store and getting personal service, so there will always be such stores. People want, the market provides?thus the recent opening of the Italian wine store, Vino, on E. 27th St.
Kevin R. Kosar, editor, www.AlcoholReviews.com, Brooklyn
Whine Rack
It was extremely disconcerting for me, an avid reader of both New York Press and its "Mail," to see that the only letter published (10/11) about Tanya Richardson's incredible 10/4 "Falsies: Fashion Hears the Call of Gigantic Ta-Ta's" article was not only from a man, but from Eric Grunin, who, typically, missed the entire point of her piece.
Thanks Eric, for condescendingly assuring us that men really want natural-looking chicks as opposed to Playboy centerfolds. I guess you probably thought this song was about you. In fact, it seemed to me the author's message/point had something to do with women (and one fashion designer in particular). It was about her anger at women telling other women that Playboy models are "ultra-feminine." And this, for once in your paper, captured the thoughts of many women I know. Sorry Eric, for once this piece was written by a woman for women, instead of being a blowjob column directed at yobs like you.
Although while we're on the subject, if men prefer "reasonably proportioned women," why isn't that what we see on the pages of magazines like Playboy? And as far as teenage girls not worrying about their developing breasts, it's going to take more than a few kind words from you before that happens, which only goes to show you can't even begin to understand the problem, and therefore have no place commenting on the subject.
Boo New York Press for printing such misogynist tripe and boo Eric for such a ridiculous, off-base letter.
Chris Adolfson, Brooklyn
Deliverance
I could tell after the first paragraph that the words "capitalism," "revolutionaries" and "Marx" would appear somewhere in the body of Andrey Slivka's article ("Editorial," 10/4). I was right. You know, we have domains where the last hardcore communists dwell?they're called universities. I recommend Slivka stay in one, and not waste ink with diatribes such as this.
Name Withheld, Birmingham, AL
Wysocki Checks In
Andrey Slivka: When it comes to conservatives, methinks you baste your syntax with too much ignorance. You do know how to stir up emotions.
Alex F. Wysocki, Chadds Ford, PA
Noble Gas
Andrey Slivka: "Is it really so outrageous to conceive that the gasoline engine could eventually be replaced by a viable electric one?" If you will learn something of chemistry and physics, you will discover that it is not only outrageous, but preposterous.
George H. Hardin, via Internet
Sanchez & Co.
I first started reading the online version of New York Press because I heard that ex-Soul Coughing singer M. Doughty had some rather hilarious articles in the archive. But I eventually started reading the site's other articles as well, if for no other reason than to perhaps find other worthwhile articles that would provide me with viewpoints I don't get living in Las Vegas?the city where I went to school.
At the risk of shining my own apple, I recently graduated magna cum laude with a degree in anthropology and Asian studies, but have since decided against becoming a professional anthropologist. Toward the end of my thesis work, I ignored the fact that the rhetoric of various ethnographies I read throughout the years just didn't jibe with the way I and the people who I know live and think, yet I continued with it?mainly because of my blind ambition and my insecurity about not getting it, a feeling that some of my professors relished my having.
How timely, then, it was for me to read Alexander Cockburn's "Mad Dog Anthropologists" ("Wild Justice," 10/4), as it provides a frank account of why anthropology is a sham, and how the acquisitiveness from which the discipline sprang is quite alive and well. Granted, I wish this were not the case, but it's refreshing to read an article that tells it like it is. Before I read "Mad Dog Anthropologists," I felt a little isolated for having similar feelings. At a recent anthropology conference, I was advised by many people to use my degree and background in computers to do consulting work in Silicon Valley. Unfortunately, what this translates into, as far as I'm concerned, is that I can use my education to become the Michael Bolton-loving efficiency expert in Mike Judge's Office Work. No thank you.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: thanks for running Cockburn's piece, and keep up the good work.
Ted Sablay, Las Vegas CityLife, Las Vegas
Yeah, He'd Have to Kill Himself
MUGGER: You probably will owe Alexander Cockburn that thousand dollars (10/11).
I've seen and heard the deep, dark, ignorant heart of America: it's George W. Bush.
Now, aren't you glad I didn't mention you?
L. Cigliano, Brooklyn
Soup Bones
MUGGER: If the second debate was "the triumph of Gov. George W. Bush's political career to date" ("e-MUGGER," 10/13), that doesn't say much for Bush. Anyway, debates are not what it's all about. The man is elected to govern, not debate.
I wonder if you were being facetious when you referred to Bush's "knockout victory" in this snoozer between two toothless pols trying to position themselves as close together as possible.
Bush's worst moment in a lackluster performance was when the subject turned to gun control. When Gore mentioned Columbine and expressed support for gun-free zones around schools, i.e. Mandatory Sitting Duck Zones, Bush did not argue in favor of school administrators being allowed to keep guns?the only reasonable option if you're really so worried about Columbine. Instead, he carefully avoided a pro-gun answer and started babbling about "dark hearts" and putting your arm around troubled teens. Really goo-goo, "sensitive" crap worthy of Lieberman. I was just slackjawed. That kind of bullshit is really dangerous in a real crisis, and I hope he doesn't plan on talking like that when something happens in the Middle East.
Face it: Bush is a dummy. His instincts are good, though, and he has very competent advisers like Richard Cheney, while Gore will surround himself with liars, crooks and incompetents to cover up for him and keep him out of jail, like Janet Reno and Madeleine Albright. Hopefully that terrifying thought will be enough to defeat Gore in November.
Joe Rodrigue, New Haven
Russ Smith replies: Bush is no "dummy." The purpose of a campaign, and the debates, is to get elected. If Bush had advocated letting school administrators keep guns on their premises, that would've led the news cycle for the next three days, even with the Mideast crisis escalating. The elite media would have been gleeful, as would have the Gore campaign. The differences between Gore and Bush, despite the rhetoric of Naderites, is stark: taxes, abortion, missile defense, military readiness, big vs. small government and Social Security are just a sampling of the issues they disagree on. Yes, Bush is big on the "good heart/dark heart" razzmatazz, but that's politics.
Pig House
MUGGER: Last Monday, you were a guest on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. I caught the last two minutes of your appearance, and during that short period you said at least two times that America considered the current administration a nightmare. This is not true. I think more people feel that the current conservatives (the extreme ones) in Congress are a nightmare for the majority of America.
Really, what I objected to was your generalization that all of America feels as you do. Not so, sir.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Beverly Moran, Queens
A.J. for Effort
MUGGER: Just a note to compliment you on the superb job you did on C-SPAN last Monday morning. I continue to believe you are one of the best conservative writers on the scene today. Good going, Russ!
MUGGER: Caught your appearance on C-SPAN and thought you made a lot of sense. At the same time, it was refreshing to hear someone actually speak the truth about today's media.
I assume you have the investigative powers to answer this question: During the 1950s and early 1960s the American Communist Party had as much press and clout as today's Reform or Green parties. They had their own newspaper and political party. They had Gus Hall and, obviously, a specific agenda. Suddenly they vanished! Just disappeared! Poof! Gone.
Where did they go? I suspect you may currently find those folks in today's Democratic Party. Maybe even running for Senate from New York?
Jim Weiner, Pocono Lake, PA
Al's Been Known to Buy It
MUGGER: I am a huge fan of "Taki's Top Drawer."
I want you to know that your comment about Rush Limbaugh being obnoxious was nothing more than a pander by you, to repay C-SPAN for having you on. If you do, as you say, agree with most of what Rush says, pray tell, where is the obnoxiousness? You would do better to inspect some of the piggish profanity in your own organ, if you want to see obnoxiousness. As a conservative, you can't go half-throttle. Your fear (of the left) prompted you to denigrate Rush. Was this to buy credibility in Washington?
And Alan Cabal never got laid in South Jersey.
Do tell him that nobody bought it.
Harry Vincent, Manhattan
This Is Becoming a Pattern, Mildred
MUGGER: As usual, I disagree with you on every account, but I especially disagree with you that George W. Bush is pro-life (10/4). The executions in Texas show that he is not. Furthermore, it was good to see that you concede that Jesse Helms is a dolt.
By using terms like a?h?-, you join Eminem and George W. Bush, who was caught using this term when he didn't realize the mic was on. Also, I don't like Elton John?his music or his lifestyle?but I think you could discuss your distaste for him without being so harsh.
Mildred Perry Miller, Chattanooga
Prig Nation
MUGGER: Re: Your 10/11 column. You mentioned the ravings of some guy named Roger Kimball, the Rolling Stones on the Ed Sullivan show and the Byrds, all vis-a-vis censorship. But there was something you left out of your comments that bears mentioning.
I'm not advocating that the government regulate speech any more than I would advocate that the government regulate my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. (Have you ever noticed that while both the First and Second Amendments say a very great deal, a great many people don't seem to be able to comprehend the simple, declarative English sentences contained therein?) But there is a nontrivial difference between the government's mandating what Hollywood can show and what CBS did with the Stones, or what those radio stations did with the Byrds.
And that difference is this: CBS, and those radio stations, is a private entity. They can allow, or not allow, any goddamn thing they want to be broadcast from their facilities. To say that CBS should have allowed the Stones to sing "Let's Spend the Night Together" or that all those radio stations should have played "Eight Miles High," even when they didn't want to, would be like my insisting that you publish every word I send to you about your articles in your newspaper, because if you don't, you're censoring me.
Yet some people seem to not comprehend that homes, businesses and private activities are not covered by the First Amendment. You have every right to censor and control what you publish in your paper, just as CBS and those radio stations did. Was it a silly thing to do? Probably. Were anybody's rights violated? Hell no.
As far as goes Hollywood, I'm partial to the Bill Bennett method of dealing with the garbage that they put out. It's called shame (rubbing their noses in what they put out publicly), and hitting them in the pocketbook (with boycotts). No government mandates, no laws?but in many ways these methods can be just as effective in compelling the "entertainment industry" (or whomever) to clean up its collective act. And the First Amendment is not violated.
Pat Myers, Houston
No, He Was Elizabeth Kolbert
I moved out of New York City a couple of months ago, but your paper was a mainstay during my shaky existence there as a small-town Nevada boy in the big city. Consistently, there would be at least four or five pieces that would contain what I would call "great" (for me, genuinely enjoyable and informative) writing. That is one hell of an accomplishment for any publication.
Anyway, after years of sticking by a variety of typewriters (electric, manual, malfunctioning, or extension of my brain) I've finally thrown in the towel and bought a computer and have been clicking in every week to check out the latest. (Nothing like reading it cover to cover in some corner bar in Brooklyn with the rain falling outside, a full ashtray in front of me and no place else to go?but I'm back in my tiny little Nevada town where the newspaper publishes its 12-page rag three times a week, and the classifieds and the obituaries are the only items of interest, and you take what you can get.)
Anyway, keep up the good work. The writing seems to be as solid as ever. But I have a few questions:
1. One of my favorite features (along with "First Person") was always "Billboard," and I haven't been able to find it in the online edition. Have I been looking in the wrong place or have you excluded it on the grounds of its being of limited interest to non-New York City readers?
2. Where's Dirty Sanchez? And?I realize this was covered ad infinitum once upon a time, but there was a lot going on in my life at the time and now I have the time to dwell on this sort of thing?was (is) he M. Doughty?
3. About a year ago there was a long piece in the "Books" section about a certain pulp author, very prolific, possibly insane, who's been languishing in obscurity for a number of years. I understand that's not much to go by (I was drinking heavily at the time), but I'd like to find out this guy's name in order to track down some of his books.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Donavin Girard, Ely, NV
Small-Town Boy Makes Good
MUGGER: I'm seeing you more and more on national forums. I first saw your work in, I believe, The Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. You are one of the few who use logic and reason in your pieces. Keep up the good work, and I am glad to see you are becoming more successful.
Frank St. Clair, Lexington, KY
Hillary Rodham Gantry
MUGGER: Great 10/11 column! You summed up the veep debate as nobody else can! Pretzel Joe is a kvetch.
Thanks for the input regarding the Lazio-Hillary debate (9/27). Don't give up. She isn't there yet. But I do feel for New York if she gets in. I don't think she's that smart. She's where she is because of her husband. Classmates from Wellesley admit to seeing two sides of her. She can throw on the charm and then sound like a foul-mouthed longshoreman seconds later.
Anna Rolen, Alexandria, VA
Tinytown
MUGGER: I saw you for the first time on C-SPAN after having been a faithful reader for a few years, and was not disappointed either in your look or your opinions. My only comment is that the readership numbers you quoted couldn't possible have included fans of New York Press who access it on the Web. Shouldn't they count as well? My guess is that the online reader number is larger than that on paper.
My only complaint about your excellent publication is that the font size of the print version is too small and I've not found a way in Netscape to accomplish enlarging it. I print off my favorite columns to read to hubby Tom, who doesn't do news online.
Scrolling through New York Press' 10/11 "Mail," some random observations from out here in Salt Springs, NV, where my nearest neighbor is 62 miles over-the-way (but where the landscape is still disturbingly reminiscent of the Middle East where I was born...)
1. To David Gaine, Manhattan: Get a grip, Bubba. Better yet, get a dictionary.
2. To Dr. Michael Pravica, Las Vegas, NM: Doc, spend some time in New York City, then wake up and smell the abomination. There are no voters in New York; there are multitudes of highly organized gangs. Appealing to the mythical "voters" of New York will do zero good, because for Hillary to even be able to run for a Senate seat when she is a carpetbagging bitch from the most backward-criminal-simultaneously-elitist-Rock-Mob state in the Union ought to tell us everything we need to know: the fix is in. It was a long time ago. This deal was cut prior to the last election. Haven't you ever watched a puppet show before?
3. To Joe Rodrigue, New Haven: Joe, comrade. If you cling to the definition that a "conservative" is someone who demands the status quo and a changeless universe, then eco-freak enviro-wackos are the single most conservative posse out there, hoss. They seek a stasis in their surroundings that's impossible to achieve, because Nature is where Change Is the Only Constant. Yet, environmental wackos attempt over and over again to legislate a permanent ban on any and all change. Besides, stasis, in physics, is known as heat-death, absolute zero. Which is what most liberal wonkmeisters are?heated up over issues of zero importance unto death. Problem is, they insist I share and enjoy their ride to hell.
4. To David Achelis, Manhattan: Do you have any idea how impossibly little any of us care Out Here in Flyover Country? A union is a mob, an organized gang of thugs. Until you figure out that the industries the unions supposedly battle not only own the unions, but actively need the unions in order to control their workforce, you will be completely utterly clueless. But I repeat myself.
5. To Howard Berland, Bronx: Pull over and change the air in your head, Berland. What little's up there's gone stale. When are you sad little people in your Burrow gonna wake up and smell the fear? There is no two-party system. There's no Them and Us. There's just "them," pickle-breath. I know you watch WWF, it's legislatively mandated in the Bronx. So get a clue. There's these two teams. They wrestle and spit and holler and call each other names for your amusement so you can't focus on the Real Deal. But both "teams" are owned by one giant cartel. Is that simple enough for you? No? I was afraid of that. Please don't vote. You're only encouraging them.
6. To Montgomery Engel, San Francisco: Whoa! You go, dude.
7. To Bill Rudman, Castro Valley, CA: Bill, senor, please don't have any children. We've got enough problems out here without your spawn mucking it up more. Park the Dodge Caravan for a minute, take the cellphone out of your ear and follow me on this. Try to understand simple plain declarative English. I know it's declasse to speak actual English correctly in California, ya'll being so progressive and all, but journalism ain't got dick to do with reportage. Try to come to grips with this, you moron. To journal is to keep a flow-of-consciousness account of your feelings, impressions, how things strike you, a compare-and-contrast sort of lovefest between what you see and what you want. To journal is something akin to keeping a diary. Watch Oprah long enough and you'll see the pitch for journaling. And that's what "journalists" do, Rudman, only they cast magic spells on your ability to think for yourself by labeling it news, or reporting.
Reporters, on the correct side of the ledger, Rudman, are people who report. They witness, they investigate, they observe, they interview, and then they report. There's no "spin" in reporting the facts, Rudman, and no one working in the media wants to be "merely" a reporter. There's no status or stature in merely reporting. These clowns all seek a stardom equal to Billy Graham's. Why, I changed the world today! Which is a funny thing in and of itself, Rudman, because there ain't a damn thing wrong with the "world." The world is just fine. This is camouflage-speak for The Truth, which is, I Want to Change the Way You Think. But it's hardly socially acceptable to say that, so most everybody?including you, no doubt, Rudman?say instead, I want to change the world.
Journalists are some of the most dishonest people in the world, whether they be liberal or conservative or from the dogstar Sirius. They are as evangelical as Gary Bauer or Hillary Clinton (who practices the State Religion of Me). They're just far, far less honest about it. At least MUGGER and the New York Post are honest and upfront about their views and purpose.
8. To all the correspondents who hate "ummm": Russ Smith is a writer. Let's stick your pale white butt up there in front of live cameras and see how you do, shall we? Writers have time to reflect and think through what they want to say. Bubbleheads on camera are practiced at not saying "ummm" and "uhhhh," but they have no substance. Russ has substance. Try to discern the difference. Unless you went to public school, in which case you should ignore what I just wrote.
9. To Marco Rosenberg, Queens: Nader is a Green. Furthermore, can you identify for me how Ralph Nader has managed to stay financially afloat all these years? Where do his funds come from? Follow his money, Marco. Follow his money. In fact, if you want your blood chilled to sub-zero, have a look at Gorbachev's political, religious, environmental politico-organization website and get a cheap thrill of fear running up and down your spine, particularly since your own federal government anted up the loose change necessary for Gorby to kick off his new ideas on world domination through a religious, financial, political, environmental, transnational globalized government.
Green is code-word for the same political hoosegow control you're experiencing now, Marco. Different name, same bunch of goons, even worse forms of repression and control. Try to come to grips with this, sir. They cover themselves in glory hoping you'll buy in. Anybody who publicly states he wants control of the legislative process whereby you, Marco, are controlled, should be shot on sight like a rabid dog. The astonishing hubris of publicly declaring that such a person wants your help in amassing such power over you?the gall?the astounding ego of it. Hunt these bastards down. Don't praise them.
That's all for now. From an empty, distant, godforsaken land devoid of yuppies and most federales.
Avi Yazul, Salt Springs, NV
The Coils of Morpheus
Re: William Monahan's interesting 10/11 book review ("A Gallows Sermon: Life & Death Among The Decadents"):
A little more emphasis on the fallacious mythology of the romantically drunken writer (female alternate: the stylishly drugged writeress) would have been good. I've always considered myself some sort of writer. I'm a Christian zealot now, but I used to be a drunkard to the extent that I experienced the rigors of delirium tremens dozens of times. I had no choice but to experience them, since not even prescribed cocktails of Ativan, Xanax and Lorazepam were enough to control my booze-dependent nervous system. My credentials on the subject of alcohol abuse are quite solid, and thus comes the following sarcastic rant to all you self-styled artsy substance abusers out there:
Among the many enlightening things that wait down the road before you, the DTs are particularly wonderful. The physical illness is exquisite, sort of like carsickness (with the addition of tremors and seizures) magnified about 100 times, with a 25 percent chance of killing you. Vomiting, dizziness, kidney and liver dysfunction, general suffering, the feeling that you're trapped inside a tortured husk of a body that you can't escape from and a painful insomnia that prevents you from escaping into unconsciousness are the order of the day.
In the course of the above merriment, you can expect numb, highly feverish stages filled with hallucinations, half-waking nightmares and various insane "visions" that won't leave you alone. Bad LSD trips are nothing compared to the DTs! Go to a hospital for treatment (which might become your only chance for survival) and the odds are good that you'll be drugged into a state of semiconsciousness where you will spend several days without the slightest idea of what's real and what isn't. You may then very well be sent home with a brand new prescription-drug jones.
The DTs are only the icing on the cake, coming (along with memory blackouts and other good times) only in the advanced stages of habitual drunkenness. Before reaching that point, you can have years of sickening hangovers, ruined relations with others and general self-degradation to enjoy. Ah, the romance of it all! Meanwhile, the system will be thrilled with you. While you drink yourself silly, big businessmen, media, governments and "leaders" of all kinds will go on oppressing the poor, abusing children, crushing the human intellect and destroying the human spirit without so much as a beer burp of protest from you.
Who knows, maybe you'll even avoid the DT stages and simply work your way into a nice, comfortable sort of lifelong drunkenness of the beer-and-ballgame-on-tv (for the fellas) or wine-cooler-and-romantic-sitcom-on-tv (for the ladies) variety. The system will love you just as much, and will send you another funny beer commercial or another "boy meets girl over a dream Lexus" ad to laugh at with your friends.
So, all you young writers and artists and Gen-Xers out there who probably haven't done a week's worth of real labor in your life:
Who says you need to give your life and spirit to that Christ, Son of God fellow mentioned by Monahan in his article? Who says you should spend your life in the dedicated, contented service of His teachings? Who says you need the happiness, confidence, peace and spiritual protection that comes from serving the Ways of the Eternal God through Christ? Keep on imitating Bukowski, Thompson and every other mediocre writer who ever made a career out of getting drunk and laid. Keep on kissing the posteriors of both Clintons, Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani and every other hack politician whose manipulations you drunkenly fail to write or speak a single word against, oh-so-hip and oh-so-angsty little artist that you are.
Wake up already, or die. The choice is yours. To quote one of your dead idols, William Burroughs: Look down, look down along that junk road before you travel there.
Jack Seney, Queens