Is This Thing On Is This Thing On? ...

Not in My Navy, Mister

I read Paul Krassner's article ("Zen Bastard," 9/10) on the hearsay statements he obtained from an anonymous, now-deceased, former enlisted U.S. Marine who supposedly claimed that U.S. Navy aircraft carriers were, at some time in the past, armed with "cobalt jackets," the latter intended to contaminate the world in a "scorched earth" manner. Krassner has been, as we used to say in the Navy, "bullshitted."

I have served more than 22 years as an officer in the U.S. Navy, active and reserve components. In my operational days at the height of the Cold War, I was a squadron ordnance officer, as well as a nuclear weapons loader, courier and delivery-aircrew. I attended every nuclear weapons-related school that was appropriate to the requirement and performed my various ordnance-related jobs aboard numerous aircraft carriers.

I assure you that, in my extensive experience on many vessels, "cobalt jackets" were never part of the U.S. Navy's weapons inventory, nuclear or otherwise. Nor were "cobalt jackets" part of any weapons-delivery training syllabus or program. I have been inside the weapons lockers of all the above-named aircraft carriers, and I never saw "cobalt jackets."

The official policy of the U.S. government and its agents is neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any specific location. That said, Krassner's description of his source's supposed access to alleged spaces on aircraft carriers, allegedly containing nuclear weapons and "cobalt jackets," is inaccurate to the point of being fanciful.

You owe your readership accurate information. This is it.

Byron King, CAPT. select, USNR, Pittsburgh

Krassner Chatter

I've studied nukes for the past 20 years, and this is the first I've heard of this one. Co60 should be easy to detect in former war zones-it produces a distinct radiation signature. If it's there, with the proper equipment it can be detected. I'd like to chat with Mr. Krassner about this.

Robert Miller, The Woodlands, TX

Cutting Onions

Your story about "The Last Survivor" ("New York City," 9/10) brought tears to my eyes-for several reasons. I'm a sucker for animal stories with a happy ending, and I once met Tex and Jinx.

As a youngster, I met Jinx Falkenberg when she was making a personal appearance in East Paterson, NJ. Decades later, I met Tex McCrary when we were both on the NYC Fleet Week committee. I was a Navy journalist assigned to attend the meetings for the Navy Office of Information. The meetings were held in the World Trade Center. As a Navyman, I used public transportation or walked around the city. Tex decided that members of the committee should have another option, so he sent a limo to pick me up for the next meetings. There were some strange looks as people saw an enlisted sailor getting into a stretch limo.

Tex McCrary was a delightful man, and I'm so glad that I happened across your story about "The Last Survivor" where you shared some of your memories of him.

Bill Egan, Flagler Beach, Florida

Judge Judged

Mark Gauvreau Judge's recent column ("Rotation," 9/10) cries out for a response.

First off, Judge claims that conservatives distanced themselves from the vats of hatred directed at Bill Clinton and his administration. Has he heard of Richard Mellon Scaife? (In case Press readers haven't, he's the rich right-winger who poured millions of dollars into dirt-digging operations on Clinton known as the "Arkansas Project.") I don't recall reading any criticism or exposes of Scaife in any right-tilting magazines; in fact, I dare Judge to find one. Not only that, but Ted Olson, our current solicitor general, has direct connections with Scaife and is directly tied to the Arkansas Project. Not a whole lot of distance if you ask me.

Then Judge uses a straw man argument when trying to point to a varied media response regarding crimes. (The Shepard case received a lot of attention; this other case didn't.) A lot of horrible crimes occur in America; they all deserve condemnation. Most, for a variety of reasons, don't receive national attention. To attempt to read something political in the cases that do tap into the national psyche is dishonest-does Judge have some memo from a media organization saying, "Oh no! We can't cover the Catholic worker case-it'll make gay people look bad?" Remember Andrew Cuanan? The gay serial killer?

Judge seems upset that a killer has a lawyer. Memo to Judge: Our system of laws and government is based on the premise that everyone deserves a fair trial and the best defense possible. I'm willing to accept that the defendant in question was guilty (O'Reilly's too smart to pick a questionable case), but people still need to be proven guilty in a court of law before they are convicted. I could point to numerous examples of why this is a good thing, but I think I'll just direct Judge to the people recently released from death row, several of whom were probably "caught red-handed."

And what's with the potshot at Amnesty International? Amnesty International reports on human-rights abuses worldwide and exposes them. The people who work for it firmly believe that torture and state-sponsored murder are evil. You'd think, of all liberal organizations, Amnesty International would earn a gold star from Judge.

Conservatives lie a lot about liberals; it's really all they're able to do. One of the most insidious lies is that liberals don't believe in evil, while conservatives do. Garbage. Of course we believe in evil. It's far more accurate to say that liberals are able to deal with the complexities of life, while conservatives can't even wrap their brains around basic Constitutional principles (like, say, "everyone deserves a fair trial")-let alone the realities of the world we live in. Conservatives want to throw up their hands and say "that's evil"; in essence, they want to give up. Liberals take the more difficult road. We attempt to understand what creates evil so we can better defeat and destroy it-and we believe more strongly in the possibility of redemption.

Greg Machlin, QUEENS

Apologies 'R' Us

Thank you for setting the record straight about the first Apology Line ("Page Two," 9/3). I have no doubt that there is still a need for an Apology Line-type service in today's society, and I wish Jesse Jacobs well. The Apology Line was started by Allan Bridge as an art project, but it quickly became the main focus of his life and remained so for 15 years. It took an enormous amount of time and energy, and was more than a full-time job for him. He never made a dime on the Apology Line, although it cost him many thousands to maintain over the years.

I only hope that at 19 years old, Jacobs has the maturity to handle the many emotional problems that come with being so involved with other peoples' lives, and has deep enough pockets to support him in this endeavor.

One more thing. A cover story in New York Press titled "I Confess: A Call to Mr. Apology Is Good for the Soul-Maybe" by John Strausbaugh (1/30/91) brought in lots of calls from apologetic people. If there are still any of the original Apology Line callers among your readers, I would love to hear from them.

Marissa Bridge, apologyproject.com

Step One: Legalize Pimpin'

I love Matt Taibbi's writing and am a regular reader. In fact his column is the reason I read New York Press. But I've gotta tell you, he's starting to sound like a fucking whiner. It's easy to pick apart things, especially inherently sleazy yet vulnerable politicians. How about some suggestions on what he would do if he were president or running for president (testicle-hangings aside)?

Kee Song, Manhattan

Creds and Coke

What the fuck is Matt Taibbi's point? That Howard Dean's stump speeches ("Cage Match," 9/3) are all pretty much the same, just delivered in different sequence? Geez, I guess Dean, unlike any other politician who's ever campaigned, should be coming up with new and original material for each stop. Mostly Taibbi seems to be upset with the fact that life for Taibbi on the campaign trail is so tough and humiliating-he can't get a Coke out of the soda machine and he didn't get his proper press credentials. Boo fucking hoo.

For those humiliations he feels entitled to put on a poor man's Hunter Thompson act for the girl journo who did get her soda and creds, lying to her about his identity and making up a stupid story about Dean posing for Guns & Ammo "shooting a pig with a bazooka." Ha ha. And the final "point" of his piece seems to be that he-who is clearly superior to all the other journalists there (who for some reason don't get his sense of humor)-is the only one who sees the arrest of some squatters near Dean's campaign bus as incredibly ironic. Ooh, gee, I guess if Dean's ideas about creating jobs weren't so elitist, if he weren't so elitist, he would have intervened somehow. Taibbi ends by quoting one of the squatters saying, "at least [Bush is] doing something." Huh?

How about some real reporting, Taibbi?

Peter Alson, Brooklyn

Sharp Spires

Scott Spires' review of Curtis White's book ("Books," 9/3) is bloody good. Spires is sharp, covers a lot of ground in a few hundred words and tells us everything we need to know about the book to help us make up our minds about whether it's worth reading. A critic for the serious reader.

Eoghan Harris, County Cork, Ireland

What's the Contradiction?

It's rather astonishing that you would blame "the mayor's insane city taxes" for encouraging a young man to steal a pack of cigarettes ("Page Two," 9/3) in the same column that glorifies "the simple, civilized pleasure of enjoying a cigarette." Do you people ever stop to think before you write?

Jeremy Zilber, Manhattan

The Sporting Life

In his review of The Middle Mind ("Books," 9/3), Scott Spires makes the following, incredibly stupid comment:

"It's like watching Babe Ruth at bat-he either homers or strikes out."

The Babe collected 2873 hits in his career, of which 714 were homers. That means he had 2159 assorted singles, doubles and triples (he averaged six triples/season), not to mention 2062 walks. Against this total-just 1330 strikeouts, and never more than 93 in any season-or one K per every 7.9 plate appearances. The Babe's HR ratio was one HR per every 14.7 plate appearance.

A more apt example of batting feast-or-famine would be someone such as Jeromy Burnitz, who has struck out 957 times (a high of 158 in 1998) vs. 955 total hits, of which 207 have been home runs. His strikeout ratio is one K per every 4.6 plate appearances; his HR ratio is one HR per every 21.3 plate appearance.

To take another Mets notable, Dave "Kong" Kingman collected 1575 career hits, 442 of them HRs (one HR per every 16.6 PA). He struck out 1816 times-one K per every 4.0 plate appearances.

The Babe was a great all-around hitter, not just the greatest home-run hitter of his time (and perhaps, of all time).

Daniel P. Keenan, Houston

High Times for Low Brows

Curtis White's The Middle Mind ("Books," 9/3) sounds like the usual cliches about how dumb Americans are, another book to insist that the author is smarter than the rest of us (the unspoken assumption is that they, not us lugs, should be in charge).

A truer view of normal America would be that of the hobbits: people figuring the rest of the world was nuts, and who were content to live in their own land and care for their own families. But, when attacked, they would be stronger and endure much more than their enemies could imagine.

There is a joke that war is how middle-America learns geography. But remember, it's thanks to these dumb "normals" that communism, Naziism, social Darwinism and other intellectual fads have not turned the world into a slave state-one run, of course, by much smarter "intellectuals."

Nancy Reyes, Pawhuska, OK

Septuagenarian Stewed

I am a 73-year-old American who may or may not be representative of most Americans. However, I do know and understand quite a bit about American foreign policy, and while I may lack imagination, say in the field of quantum physics, I do not lack imagination in the field of literature nor of world affairs.

Having said that, I do recognize that commenting on your review of Curtis White's The Middle Mind ("Books," 9/3) is like having someone tie your shoelaces. It can be done but never to one's own satisfaction. I suppose to be fair I should read the book, but I doubt that I will. At my age, I don't have a lot of time left to read, and I will be damned if I am going to read stuff like this.

Nevertheless, based on what I surmise is the subject of the book, here is what I think. What I object to and have heard all my life is the idea that Americans are ignorant, that we are cowboys (as those lovely Europeans like to imagine) and that our educational standards are extremely low. If these are true, why then, has the U.S. achieved so much? How much is this envy, how much is fact?

I am not a dunce, nor are most of the Americans I know or grew up with in a working-class neighborhood in Detroit. I grant you that as a product of Stanford and Oxford, I am not typical as far as education goes...for Americans...or people of any other nation for that matter.

This author seems to be kicking a very dead horse, and my guess is he is doing so because he lacks the imagination he so decries as missing in Americans. He should find a new subject.

Robert Harper, Toronto