PAPA DONT TAKE NO MESS Papa Dont Take ...
Dirty Sanchez
Thank you for your recent Ralph Nader coverage (MUGGER, 2/18). To quote Russ Smith on the topic of Nader's exclusion from the 2000 debates, "Nader would have made minced meat of Gore and Bush." Ralph, you have my support and vote once again. Hey Nation, go fuck yourself!
Eduardo Victor Sanchez III, Jersey City
Catholic School Girls Rule
Look, I'm not super-Catholic, but why is Catholic bashing so encouraged? You write, "Playing Spot-the-Catholic is never easier than on Ash Wednesday. Most of the time you have to look for spasms of guilt and hatred of gays, while today they sport black splotches on their foreheads, making them super-easy to spot. Remember, some of them are really nice?don't be shy about asking them to help you with your Latin homework" ("Picks," 2/25).
Catholics are more anti-gay and more prejudiced than believers of Judaism and Islam? The Baptists? Come on now. Just because it's an easy target doesn't make it right to bash people on one of their more humbling and reflective days.
Mariette Papic, Manhattan
Mel's Message
Kudos to Matt Zoller Seitz's astute analysis of the issues regarding Mel Gibson's film ("Film," 2/25). Maureen Dowd's op-ed piece in the New York Times and David Denby's comments on CNN regarding this film miss one frightening point: A huge number of viewers of this film will be children, taken by their well-meaning parents. What is a child to think, after emerging from two hours of horrific violence? Young and sensitive, they may be affected for the rest of their lives with, at best, an antipathy toward Jews, at worst?
My maternal grandparents were gassed at a younger age than I am today. It begins with a climate in which a film such as this one (which, despite comments from both critics and supporters, does not follow the Gospels, but picks and chooses from their verses) is not denounced from all quarters. I certainly would not want to live in a nation where such forms of expression are prohibited. Neither do I think that anyone, especially one who claims to believe in the way of life that Jesus espoused?that one must love not only his friends, but all men?should produce such a hateful film.
If this film painted African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans, or any other racial or ethnic group in our country, in such a light, it would be properly condemned by all good people. Jews deserve no less. The lessons of the Holocaust?which has been aptly described as "the most significant event in history since the Crucifixion"?are sadly fading, and the spectre of anti-Semitism is alive and well again in our country. Other minority groups should be very concerned, as well as every good Christian.
Allen Roth, Manhattan
Nathaniel Hornblower
Mel Gibson is right ("Film," 2/25)! The Jews were the ones that wanted to crucify Christ, but they are not responsible for his death. It was our sins that put him there, not the Jews. My sin is the reason that Jesus Christ had to give his life so that I could be saved and live forever. I am not worthy, but Christ was sinless, therefore he was worthy.
Nathaniel S. Lowe, Noblesville, TN
Buy a Better Dictionary
I read your article and have two comments ("Cage Match," 2/18). One, while I share the sentiment of the author, what was the purpose of the blowjob references? Makes me wonder if the author is as mature as the subject matter he is approaching. Two, the correct spelling for the slang word for sperm is "cum."
Brian Patrick Lunde, Chicago
The "Whole Person"!?! Ha!
Bigotry against people with disabilities is still treated as a joke in our society. J. R. Taylor's reference to Heather Mills, Paul McCartney's wife, is a crushing example ("B-Listers," 2/18).
Taylor believes Micky Dolenz is so much luckier than McCartney because "Micky's model [referring to his wife] has both pins, too, which is better than what Paul McCartney's stuck with nowadays."
Mills never made a secret of her missing leg before Mr. McCartney married her. Does Taylor think Mr. McCartney didn't know "what" he was marrying? And does Taylor believe being disabled or being married to a disabled person is such a tragedy? Suppose Ms. Mills were black or Asian and Taylor wrote how lucky Dolenz is compared with Mr. McCartney in that context? Would she still be a "what" in Taylor's eyes?
What all bigots have in common is a failure to see the whole person. The person who is somehow different is judged by the bigot according to only that difference. It probably wouldn't matter to Taylor if Mills had three or more legs. Just being different is to be judged as inferior by the bigot.
I thank New York Press for reminding us all why we need the Americans with Disabilities Act, along with all the other pro-disability-rights legislation on the books, and how much further we all need to go.
Philip Bennett, Brooklyn
Precious Bodily Fluids
Alexander Zaitchik describes how the real threat of nuclear holocaust is getting shuffled under the rug ("Hair-Trigger Planet," 2/18). The U.S. must wake up and focus on what really lies ahead, starting with reinstating the Russian American Observation Satellite Program (RAMOS), which has stalled due to ignorance. A dialogue regarding nuclear activity is essential, lest total annihilation occur.
Norman Singer, Brooklyn
Who Knew?
To us on the Island of Maui, Dennis Kucinich is not the least bit "funny-looking" ("Cage Match," 2/25). This is not on Mars but in Haiku. On Maui, and in my precinct the votes were: one for Dean, five for Edwards, four for Kerry and 23 for Kucinich. On all outer islands combined he won by 53 percent. Only Honolulu spoiled this sweeping victory. As far as I know, he will have eight delegates from Hawaii.
It would never occur to us to laugh about him, but we definitely laugh with him, and we would also cry with him. You see, here he is loved.
Ilona Lapinsky, Haiku, HI
Boy, Did We Ever!
New York Press has really outdone itself this time. Multiple ignorant slams at Catholics and Jews ("Picks," 2/25). I guess Koyen's brain doesn't get much oxygen in that 170th-floor apartment he allegedly lives in.
You got something against Edgar Winter ("Picks," 2/18)? Oh yeah, I forgot. No one under the age of 35 has ever heard of him. Try doing a little research on your targets before you go off on them. Maybe you should start paying your interns/factcheckers.
Also, is it now mandatory at New York Press to have every edition contain at least one article glorifying methamphetamine use? Ever seen COPS? "Naked man on speed won't come down from roof." Yep, meth is definitely a cool drug.
Sinking, sinking, sinking...
Joe Mazza, Manhattan
Marlboro-Smoking Gun
Gene Borio, an infamous anti-smoker, takes the notorious approach of the anti-tobacco crusaders when he condemns New York Press for questioning how the Dept. of Health arrived at the number of deaths attributed to tobacco ("The Mail," 2/25). Instead of supporting his accusation with sound science or even math, his proof that he's right is by attacking the messenger and stating that anyone critical of blatantly crude statistics surrounding tobacco has been bought by the tobacco industry.
If we're going to play that game, then also question how pure the Dept. of Health is in their cancer stat reports when Mayor Bloomberg is in a financial partnership with pharmaceutical companies. You know, the ones that depend on smokers being scared enough to buy their quit-smoking aids.
Audrey Silk, founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoke Harassment
Aw, Shucks
First of all, I owe you an apology. About a year ago, I fired off a scathing missive (criticizing you for not including Mayor Bloomberg in your 2003 "50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers" list). In that letter, written right after Russ Smith sold New York Press, I feared you had become a washed-up rag whose glory days were over, and bemoaned the lack of an alternative to the Voice.
Well, now a year has gone by, and I'm glad to say my fears were groundless. New York Press is still a great weekly, still the cranky, sarcastic enemy of pretentiousness and all things pseudo. The new publishers/owners have done an excellent job. Kudos, etc., and I'm sorry I doubted you.
With that out of the way, let me get to the occasion for the present letter.
You published a letter from Gene Borio regarding smoking statistics ("The Mail," 2/25). Borio took you to task for ridiculing an (insanely high) estimate of tobacco-related deaths in New York City. In addition to calling you "willful[ly] ignorant" and comparing you to the Flat Earth Society, he twice insinuated that you were being paid off by Big Tobacco.
Something about his tone seemed a little slick and familiar, so I did a Google search on him. It turns out that Borio is a major anti-smoking fanatic, one of those guys who tirelessly stumps for banning smoking everywhere (well, everywhere except where the rich and powerful get together). His articles are all over "Tobacco.org," and he seems to issue letters and press statements with the fervor of Joe Cherner (the anti-smoking Francophile) and "Dr." Stanton Glantz. (His Ph.D. is in mechanical engineering, but he pretends it's in pathology.) The favorite technique of these fanatics is to pose as outraged private citizens, spew junk statistics and accuse anyone who questions them of being on the take.
I've had it with these jokers. Their "science" is utterly disreputable alarmism. What's more, it suffers from the very compromise of which Borio accuses New York Press. Every single study purporting to find danger in "secondhand smoke" has been at least partially underwritten by the pharmaceutical industry?Big Tobacco's main rival in the nicotine trade. It's as credible as Vivarin funding studies showing the terrible dangers of coffee. It's a farce.
What's more, Borio's insinuation that New York Press is being paid off is disingenuous at best. If you've followed the saga of the smoking ban even casually, you know that Big Tobacco doesn't have a dog in this fight. Big Tobacco doesn't fight anything except the lawsuits aimed directly at it, as I'm sure Borio knows full well. (This, of course, raises other questions: Why is the tobacco industry so shy of propaganda all of a sudden? Could it be that, since it still controls the tobacco crop, it would profit by any situation?whether it sells tobacco to the public, or refined nicotine to the pharmaceuticals? Could it be, in other words, that Vivarin actually gets its caffeine from Juan Valdez? I don't know, but it would explain a lot. I wish someone in the media?hint, hint?would look into it.)
Let me add that I have no ties whatsoever to Big Tobacco. I don't even buy their products.
Paul Sherrard, Jersey City
Cyndi Crawford?!? Finally!
I just recently came across a review written on your publication's behalf of Tori Amos' album, Scarlet's Walk ("Daily Billboard," 9/24/2002).
I'm going to be civil. From what I read, the review itself had nothing to do with the actual songs, and everything to do with Amos' words about the songs. Frankly, I think your reviewer needs to actually listen to the album before he starts ranting and raving. Better yet, he could stand to spend a day with Amos before he starts in on the incoherent nonsense that I read.
William Repsher may have meant to make valid points with this review, and I could respect that if he showed any evidence of actually paying attention to what the review is about: the music.
Cyndi S. Crawford, Peachtree City, GA
Charlize's Angel
The number of factual errors Armond White makes in his recent article weighing up Meg Ryan and Charlize Theron on Theron's past is shocking ("Film," 2/18). And perhaps people who don't know anything about South Africa or farmers in that country should not embarrass themselves by writing about it.
White is a clown. How well could he have concentrated during this movie if he thought that Selby's mother was one of the characters? It's her aunt, for crying in a bucket! Charlize is amazing and we're all (and I mean all) very proud of her in South Africa. Do you even realize the unifying effect that Charlize has on her home country? She'll bring the Oscar home to Africa?period.
Liezl Kruger, Johannesburg
Ain't Nothin' Gonna Stop Us Now
Thank you so much for this awesome article about Dennis Kucinich ("Cage Match," 2/25). I plan to forward it to every non-Kucinich supporter I know before the March 2 primary here in New York. I also plan to forward it to every Kucinich supporter I know so that they can do the same.
Joni Handley, Hyde Park, NY
Two on Dennis
I am writing to express my disappointment in your article about Kucinich supporters penned by Gregory Gilderman ("One Song, One Vote," 2/25). I read the article after first reading a better piece by Matt Taibbi in the same edition. What a contrast!
I felt that the Gilderman article was poorly written and wondered if it had any basis in fact. So, I contacted both of the persons mentioned in the article by email (Michael Locker and Jessica Flagg). Apparently, your young and seemingly inexperienced writer took some liberties both with the truth and with journalism courtesy.
Regarding Locker, I am told Gilderman barged into his office, unannounced, did not identify himself as a reporter and began to ask intrusive questions. There was no prior phone call asking for an interview. Locker was busy and did show Gilderman the courtesy of phoning up to the other office to see if someone could assist him. When there was no one available, Locker asked him?not told him?to leave. Locker indicated that there were several inaccurate statements and assumptions in the piece.
Regarding Flagg, I have no idea why Gilderman felt that he had to print inaccuracies indicating things such as her driving style (which he misrepresented, according to Flagg) and stating that her guitar was in the kitchen (another fabrication). Although, she gave him the complete lyrics to her song, his annotation seemed to skew the sentiment.
Is this the kind of journalistic ethic that you want to expose to your readership? I find it an affront and feel that you need to send an apology to both individuals who were misrepresented by your rookie writer. I would also suggest that you keep stories so poorly written and researched on your shelf.
Hats off, again, to Matt Taibbi for his "Odd Man In" article.
Marykay T. West, Madison, WI
Social Safety Nets
I'm glad that someone around here still recognizes the reality of corporate welfare in regard to pro sports teams and to other examples of government boosting of failed big businesses ("Nets of Plenty," 2/11). "Free marketplace" my foot, you so-called conservatives and "libertarians." Bear in mind that this is the same economic system that, in "good" economic times, regularly toys with interest rates to deliberately maintain a specific unemployment rate.
Therefore, it would be good if the welfare cuts of 1996?perpetrated by the liberal darling William Clinton?would be reversed at least until such time as the government cuts welfare payments to corporations and gazillionaires.
Not that you would know it from a media that keeps touting "millions of people successfully taken off the welfare rolls," but Clinton's welfare cuts?the likes of which were unknown under Ronald Reagan, a prime target of the liberals?have led to a documented rise in homelessness, a documented failure to coherently provide "Workfare" jobs to millions of people, and the documented "disappearing" of countless other poor people, assumedly into the gloomy economic underground of those who have no welfare or unemployment and have given up looking for legitimate work in Bush's jobless "growing economy".
Given all this, restoring the former welfare program ("Sacrilege!" I can hear all the phony-baloney "free marketers" crying) would be a matter of simple and unimpeachable fairness.
That would be the fairness of God and true Christianity, anyway. The "fairness" of man's systems of course leads to the poor being sneered at by the safe suburban religion supported by conservatives, and killed in their mothers' wombs by the abortion supported by liberals.
Jack Seney, Queens
Power of Email
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have emailed this article all over the place. It's about time someone said these things about Dennis Kucinich ("Cage Match," 2/25).
Janet Cahalin, Beverly, MA
It's a Gas, Gas, Gas
Your Page Two?what should we call it, a correction??titled "Let's Try This Again," was a bit much (2/25). Okay, so your previous issue left out a punchline in one of its anecdotes. Understandable that you worry readers might have been confused. But to reprint the whole thing with a big headline and explanation calling attention to itself for... a fart joke? After reading it I couldn't help but feel like I'd just witnessed someone tell a joke that nobody laughed at, which then caused that person to explain the joke. Eww.
Brad Kloza, Brooklyn