NO ONION BREATH, THATS ALL WE ASK No Onion ...
Maloney Says We're Baloney
Your article about my legislation misrepresents the purpose and timing of the bill ("Page Two," 2/25). First, you did not mention that the legislation is aimed at improving our protection from terrorism. In fact, you don't even mention the word terrorism. Your readers would benefit from knowing the intent of this legislation.
Improving Joint Terrorism Task Forces would allow for greater communication among intelligence and law enforcement agencies about specific terrorist threats to the United States. New Yorkers clearly have a personal stake, given our history and the continuing terrorist threats against our region that have been reported since 9/11, including plans to attack the Brooklyn Bridge and others to use domestic aircraft once again to attack the country (which have resulted in the cancellation of flights from European cities to New York).
My bill would not in any way extend the CIA's authority into domestic law enforcement, nor would it allow state or local law enforcement personnel to work under the rules and regulations of the CIA. I would oppose any legislation offered in Congress to achieve such purposes. To eliminate confusion on this, I plan to introduce legislation that cannot be misconstrued as changing any of the distinct and separate responsibilities of any federal or local agency, but makes clear it is their job to communicate with one another when it comes to preventing terrorist threats.
Lastly, the article suggests that I introduced this bill "just in time for convention season," but it has been introduced in Congress for three years already (H.R. 3514 in the 107th Congress and H.R. 3439 in the 108th Congress). Thank you for allowing your readers to learn of these clarifications.
Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress Democrat, 14th District, New York
Car Crush
This is a great article that illustrates the national problem of automobile addiction ("Auto Asphyxiation," 3/3). What we really have is "automobile apartheid," because first-class citizens are in vehicles while those on foot, bikes or public transit are treated as second-class citizens. The first really big car lie, given at the General Motors 1939 World's Fair, was that Americans would be able to drive at 100 miles-per-hour on 14-lanesuper highways and cross the country in a single day.
Joel Hirschhorn, Chevy Chase, MD
Wrong Notes
Corrections to the Gregory Gilderman's article: The tune is Woodie Guthrie's "The Farmer Is the Man Who Feeds Them All" ("One Song, One Vote," 2/25).
As to the driving: I run yellow lights, not red, and the reason for the haste was the writer's need to catch a train (or he'd have been stuck for an hour on a cold train platform). The conversation about the importance of the New York primary never happened or he would have known that less than one-quarter of the votes had been cast as of the date of his story, and the New York Primary is anything but inconsequential! Still, I'm glad that he left with a positive impression, since I don't think he expected to.
Jessica Flagg, New York Delegate Candidate for Dennis Kucinich
Blown Away
These two columns by Jennifer Blowdryer, which are the only two I have so far perused, are quite spectacular ("Up All Night"). I have just returned from London, and I was delighted beyond belief to find her writing in your newspaper. Fabulous. Fantastic. I applaud you.
Jane King, Manhattan
Riff Raff, Part III
If you can stand one more letter on my use of the word "nigger" in conversation with Adam Bulger ("Libertarians at the Gate," 1/28): Jim Melloan's explanation is, of course, correct ("The Mail," 2/25). He also brings up an issue that has always divided Libertarians: Should we (as he implies) water down our rhetoric and obfuscate our principles, on the assumption that the more "mainstream" we act, the more millions of voters will magically flock to us? Or should we state our positions loud and clear, and let people join us, or not? I say, the stronger we mix the punch, the more people will want to sample it. Homeopathic tea never has much appeal.
If I had not expressed myself as I did, I daresay Bulger would not have reported that snippet of bathroom conversation. But I wanted him to. In large part, the Libertarian party's mission is to defend common folk?the little people, the riff-raff, the lower orders, call them what you will?against nefarious legislation by a powerful, moneyed elite that seeks to restrict personal freedom "for the common good," or "for our children." This is why we take principled stands against smoking bans, gun control and drug prohibition. No other party in the United States?not one?fights for your personal liberty as we do.
Joseph Dobrian, Director of Media Relations, Manhattan Libertarian Party
Jesus Weren't No Pussy
Obviously Matt Zoller Seitz dislikes Mel Gibson with a "passion" ("Film," 2/25). As far as saying that Mel Gibson was making Jesus to not be a wimp, has he read the Bible? Obviously Jesus was not a wimp or he would not be able to withstand what was thrown at him. He did it for us. If the movie is violent, it is because the death of Jesus was violent. I believe the writer of this review has jumped on the same bandwagon that everyone else has and is quick to criticize something that they do not want to see. How can someone being nailed to the cross not be violent? That was the most absurd commentary that I have seen yet.
Debbie Crawford Root, St. Petersburg, FL
If I Had a Hammer
I am sorry, but I find many of Matt Zoller Seitz's observations unfounded and untrue. Do you really think Mel Gibson fashioned Christ to look masculine to sell him to America's youth ("Film," 2/25)? Looking at history, Jesus' occupation and lifestyle, it is apparent that he would have a strong, masculine build. After all, he grew up as a working carpenter?how much more evidence does one need to suggest that Jesus was a strong man?
Seitz also commented that Gibson failed to have the Jews react to Christ's suffering, and then goes on to say that there were exceptions including a few priests, Jesus' mother, friends and followers. He complains that the Jews are portrayed as unsympathetic, but then fails to point out the cruelty of the Romans. Sure, there were shots of sympathizing Romans, but if Seitz didn't notice, the Romans were the ones nailing Jesus to the cross and inflicting so much pain upon him.
I am not saying that Mel Gibson is painting the Romans or the Jews in an unfair light, but rather that the images are more even-handed than Seitz claims. Don't forget that Jesus' mother, friends and followers were Jews. Besides, the people?both Jews and Romans?witnessing the crucifixion do not represent the groups as a whole, since people of society unlikely to sympathize would be present watching a crucifixion while those appalled by such an act most likely would not have been interested in viewing such a scene.
I hope my response does not seem unfair or rude. I just ask Seitz to reconsider some of the observations that I have put forth to you. Thank you.
Jamie Pilloni, Thousand Oaks, CA
Schindler's Passion
Armond White's defense of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ promotes him from curmudgeonly critic to indefensible hack, from fascinatingly quirky to fundamentalist nut case ("Film," 3/03). Initially, the piece simply seems to prove, as do so many of White's columns, that the man is a mediocre writer who is wholly inept at the skill of debate. He accuses, for example, David Denby of being "disingenuous" when he asserted that "Spike Lee didn't present more of Malcolm X's 'intellectual gaiety,'" but he never qualifies his statement or bothers to explain why Denby's comment is so guileful. Lobbing insults as though they were facts without presenting any sort of argument to prove one's case is the kind of imbecilic, perfidious, unconvincing tactic that so-called "pundits" like Bill O'Reilly use when they don't have a leg to stand on. What wonderful company Armond finds himself in.
Worse yet is the underlying sense of bigotry that runs throughout White's article. White implicitly accuses critics of using what Gibson called "anti-Christian sentiment" to attack The Passion. He says that no one would ever complain about the violence in Schindler's List and bemoans that "movie culture gets increasingly godless." The subtext of White's comments isn't subtle: Our "godless culture" attacks Christian art, but the Jews are left to their own devices.
What White never notes, of course, is that Schindler's List presents its extreme violence within the context?religious, historical and political?of a larger story (something Gibson's film altogether lacks), and it doesn't present the Jews' persecutors as a social/racial stereotype, left to be universally reviled. When asked why he wants Jesus dead, the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas, actually rubs his fingers together, making the universal sign for "money," enforcing one of the oldest and most hurtful stereotypes against the Jews.
Here's a wager for you, Armond: Let's have a public debate about film, moderated by an impartial jury, and the winner gets your column. If your debating skills really are as poor as your weekly reviews demonstrate, it'll be a quick fight.
Matthew E. Goldenberg, Manhattan
Armond White replies: Goldenberg intentionally misses my point on disingenuous critics and movie violence: that they accept the violence in Schindler's List but not the violence in The Passion of the Christ. Both films represent historical events with the conviction that both events demand our unflinching attention and solemn regard. Spielberg and Gibson both hope to awaken audience compassion. Most critics simply wish to taint public opinion.
At issue is the media sanctioning of particular views on history and faith. I cited Denby's guileful comments about Malcolm X and The Passion to point out his habit of reducing other people's passions to what he feels is appropriate rhetoric; that is, he refuses the messages of Malcolm X and Jesus Christ on any terms but his own. It's a skeptic's ploy trying to pass as esthetic criticism. So far, no reviews of The Passion have intelligently or fairly represented the film; the reviews have been clouded by ignorance, hostility and paranoia. And other, more personal biases also come into play. The sudden and dubious alarms about violent content are only credible as a reflection of critics' own sadism?that's what they regularly enjoy and praise (as in Denby's reviews of Monster, Black Hawk Down, Armageddon, Speed, et al.)
An intelligent reader should welcome a left-to-moderate Christian view of The Passion?or any movie. But that perspective has been squeezed out of the mainstream media. Instead, Mel Gibson's so-called liberal critics choose to respond with fascist tactics such as libelous allegations and threats of suppression. They want to excoriate the filmmaker or, as Goldenberg suggests, take away my column through some dubious debate.
Sorry, Goldenberg, we can't have a battle of wits. I don't duel with unarmed opponents.
Ascension Assumptions
Matt Zoller Seitz is making huge assumptions about Mel Gibson's motives and ideology without much to back it up ("Film," 2/25). Gibson is trying to give an accurate historical account of what happened 2000 years ago. Many movies have come out portraying Jesus in different ways, which may have depicted Jesus in a way different from reality. Gibson is simply trying to make it real, to tell it the way it really happened.
Crucifixion is one of mankind's most torturous executions. Gibson simply wants to depict this accurately. The language is Aramaic and Latin (Jesus' real language). Saying that Gibson is trying to prove a big point and contextualizing the Jesus story thereby shading historical facts is a huge assumption.
I hope his motive for making the movie was to portray Jesus' love and passion for mankind, for whom He gave His life. But we may never know Gibson's motives.
Jesus gave up His life and exhibited true love with His lifestyle and ultimately with His climactic sacrifice. That's what I believe the movie is or at least should be about. It's about "bless those who curse thee," not about revenge and destruction. It's a call to a Godly way of life. To stop being selfish at the expense of others. Could we say it is a crusade? Potentially. But a crusade not of death and murder of thousands, but a true crusade. A crusade of love. One ending in life, hope and love. It's a story of God's love for us. Truth is a correct description of reality.
God bless your life ever-abundantly.
Jacob Johnson, Augusta, GA
War Without End?
Matt Taibbi has been right on throughout this election, and exemplifies what so many of us are thinking and feeling ("Cage Match," 2/25). I routinely read some form of election coverage, start feeling very nauseous, curse the media and urgently print out more Dennis Kucinich flyers.
So many people feel what is expressed in this article, yet they look down and sigh, saying that Kucinich doesn't have much of a chance. Well, he does if you vote for him. Until I read his platform, I didn't even realize that a president had the ability to do away with insurance companies and give us universal healthcare (I knew Canadians had it but didn't know we could, too). I didn't realize that our children could go to college free of tuition or that we could just cancel NAFTA and the WTO. Our military friends and family can come home instead of getting killed over oil. We can stop the crazies in the White House from profiting from our losses. We just have to vote for him.
Mary Roberts, Bronx
America: Unforgiven
Thanks to Matt Taibbi for the piece on Dennis Kucinich ("Cage Match," 2/25). I won't forgive America, either, for treating this guy the way it did. Kucinich is right on every goddamn issue, and the Democratic Party acted toward him with condescension?when it deigned to pay attention to him at all. And the media ignored him except when they were making fun of him for being a vegan. I hated that Times editorial, "And Now There Are Two." And I hated the earlier one that said that Kucinich and Sharpton should drop out of the debates. Why does their participation so deeply offend the Times?
Kris Parrish, Manhattan
From Paradise Island
Bravo, Matt Taibbi! The world is watching madness overtake America, and Dennis Kucinich is the antidote ("Cage Match," 2/25). He is the voice of the future if the world is to have one. If his policies were followed, there would be no need for terrorism.
Alan Scarfe, Saturna Island, BC, Canada
King vs. Kucinich
Thank you for this very insightful and courteous story. In the debates on CNN, Larry King was so conceited and dismissive of Dennis Kucinich ("Cage Match," 2/25). I was appalled at the rude interruptions and his lack of attention while Dennis was responding. King is an elitist, supercilious, self-important schmuck. He does not deserve to be on the same stage as Congressman Kucinich, the greatest elected public servant of my lifetime. Thank you for seeing through the hype to reveal the truth.
Jean Paskalides, Island Lake, IL
Siddhartha Taibbi
I am writing to thank you for the wonderfully written article on Dennis Kucinich ("Cage Match," 2/25). The article so clearly describes the candidate as the caring, compassionate public servant he is, while providing soothing relief from the norm in media reactions to his candidacy. Those of us, like the writer, who have a genuine sense of the need for peaceful conflict resolution in the world and understand the interconnectedness of all things are fortunate to have a voice in your paper.
Jeri Sweeney, Sevierville, TN
Waffle, Skip and Dance
Thank you for supporting Congressman Dennis Kucinich ("Cage Match," 2/25). I am a Dennis Kucinich supporter. I do not like the way the media has treated this rare, special man. I would like to see Dennis Kucinich elected president in November 2004. Kerry and Edwards (or Dean, Clark or others) don't do it for me. They waffle, skip, dance and whirl around an answer, giving, instead, a dissertation in place of an answer. I hope that your article helps to raise the consciousness and awareness of John Q. Public.
Sandra Taylor, Santa Monica
Dennis is No Menace
Thank you so very much for what must be the best and most accurate portrayal of presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich that I have seen so far in this primary season ("Cage Match," 2/25). Clearly, I don't have to tell you the multitude of biased ways the mainstream press has handled this uniquely principled candidate, the four-term congressman, the recipient of the 2003 Ghandi Peace Award.
Noel Sanger, Altamonte Springs, Fl