The Mail

THEMAIL

THIS WEEK: Bush body-slammed from left, right and center; Kerry cautiously defended by gay, straight and transgendered; and Mr. Wiggles causes a cubicle reader to lose her bathroom break. PLUS: If one more grammar stickler mentions our use of "irregardless," it's ebonics all August long.

THE FIRST DRAFT SAID "KA-KA"

You knew Matt Taibbi was angry at the end of his article "Liberal Case Against Kerry," when he used "crap" instead of "shit" (8/4). If he'd been really furious, he might have used "poop." Or, in the ultimate apoplectic moment before dying of a burst blood vessel, "doo-doo."

Ross Nelson, Casselton, ND

THAT'S THE ONE

"Mercurochrome?" ("The Mail," 8/4) Isn't that the disturbingly sadistic red liquid that my grade-school teacher used to apply to my freshly scarred leg or arm that caused pain exponentially more intense than the actual injury it was supposed to be treating?

Michael Williams, Manhattan

CALLING 911

Bravo to Alan Cabal for his "Miracles and Wonders" column (7/28)! I saw the news last week that cell phones were going to be useable on flights and immediately wondered if anyone remembered all those Wonderful World of Disney calls made from the doomed planes on 9/11. Lo and behold, Alan does.

Ken Collier, Santa Rosa, CA

OFFICE SPACE

Wow. That "Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles" comic was hysterical (Neil Swaab, 8/4). It was a bad idea to read it while at work, though, because my desk is right in the middle of the office. I am now officially "that girl" choking back laughter and smiling crazily at my computer screen.

Marisa Bardach, Long Island

STALE COKE AND POISON PEPSI

I just read William Bryk's "The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush" (8/4). In November, we have the choice between John Kerry, who has failed to do anything right, and George Bush, who has succeeded in doing everything wrong. Not much of a contest; Kerry's getting my vote.

The differences between the two-and-a-half analyses of the candidates in your Aug. 4 issue are telling. Bryk's analysis starts with a clearly defined philosophy and shows how Bush has failed to uphold it. Greg Bates never defines what goals Kerry should pursue except inversely, by pointing out Kerry's apparent contradictions with righteous indignation: suppressing Nader, maintaining troops in Iraq under U.S. authority, simultaneously being pro- and anti-choice, and so on ("Who's Afraid of Ralph Nader?"). Both Bates and Matt Taibbi imply that Kerry's platitudes and concessions actually have some bearing on what he will do if elected. It's a cute and naive standpoint that most people lose before their bar mitzvah.

While Kerry has a few irritating traits, Bush has been consistently nauseating for four years. Kerry's faults, as listed in Bates' case study, are pragmatic in nature, designed to swing over a few voters. Bush's actions, however, destroy everything that made America decent and livable. Both assholes spew a lot of shit, but Bush is a million times more toxic.

Name Withheld, Queens

IS THAT A COMPLIMENT?

Thanks to Mr. Taibbi for cutting the bullshit in a way not seen since George Carlin ("The Liberal Case Against Kerry," 8/4). I can't wait until Kerry gets elected, and the left can stop using their intellectual energy trying to convince me that a White Castle slider is filet mignon and start actually talking about making real world social change again.

Alex Hogan, Washington, DC

HAND-DELIVERED

Regarding "The Conservative Case Against Bush" by William Bryk (8/4). That's absolutely the very best article on the subject of what real conservatives believe that I've ever had the privilege of reading. Hopefully you can get my small voice of approval to the writer.

Jack Johnson, Chicago

CALL UPS CALL-IN

Thanks for Alexander Zaitchik's article about GI resistance to the Iraq war ("The Slumbering Ranks," 7/28). One minor correction: the GI Rights Hotline handles lots of calls (your number of 3000 a month is about right), and some of them are certainly about refusal of deployment and getting a discharge as a conscientious objector.

But we also handle calls about a variety of other things: medical/emotional injuries, hardship, erroneous enlistment, officers resigning their commissions, reserves and national guard separations and discharges, GIs who go AWOL/UA, etc. We talk with parents and spouses, intervene sometimes with the command, refer GIs to lawyers when needed, and do all kinds of research to find out what regulations apply to particular cases and what various command units are actually doing about specific situations. We wind up with lots of stories about recruiters' lies, command irregularities and often the general ignorance of officers with regard to regulations and procedures.

We know the effectiveness of the Hotline from the response of the people who call. We hear things like, "I couldn't have gotten through this without you," all the time. "How can we ever thank you; the information you gave us was invaluable." "You're the first person who's listened to me, who actually wanted to know what I thought."

Here in New England, we have 10 regular counselors (all of us volunteer), with more who have undergone some training and are getting ready to join us.

Robert Dove, GI Rights Hotline,

via email

TEARS ON THE PAGE

"The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush" by William Bryk was brilliant (8/4)! I just about cried when I read it. I don't know if I am conservative or liberal or both-or neither. I, along with most Americans, am confused. But I know this: Killing thousands of Iraqi citizens because Bush does not like their moth-eaten dictator is nuts. Squandering $400 billion on this insanity is nuts. And having a president who constantly exhibits poor grammar is nuts. How did this happen?

I come from a family split between old-time Democrats and old-time Republicans. Episcopalians, yet free thinkers. Oil and gas people, attorneys, etc. And I tell you that none of us intend to vote for Bush in November.

Thanks again for the very best summary of Bush and his bizarre faux conservatism I have ever read.

Bennie Eloise Godwin, Weatherford, TX

SHADES OF BLACK

In his attempt to de-racialize the genocide in Sudan in "One Hellhole Under God" (7/28), Christopher Lord routinely discounts the self-understandings of the participants themselves. Although, for example, Lord may not be able to discern the objective color difference between the self-described Arab and black Sudanese, the perception of race is clearly a vital, defining aspect of how the Janjaweed understand themselves and their declared Jihad. Those involved do not see the conflict as a struggle over depleted natural resources. Arab-identified marauders overtly deploy racial and religious justification for their genocidal attacks on the non-Muslim Sudanese. An examination of a variety of conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa would reveal a pattern of Muslim expansion at the expense of non-Muslim Africans.

Jeffrey Wengrofsky, Manhattan

KERRY'S K HOLE

I just read Matt Taibbi's article about the drug war in the 2004 presidential campaign ("Narc Party," 7/28). Thanks to both Taibbi and to New York Press for producing this summation. It is a much-needed contribution to a saner 2004 election. Much more reportage is needed covering the unacceptability of the candidates of both of the national dominance parties.

Kerry's drug war record gives light to how this man handles life and death decisions. Something, I have heard, that is important in a president. While some contradictory reports assert that Kerry has softened some of his positions on drug policy, his own web site does not confirm any of those assertions. It is a fact that Kerry has built his career on the high incarceration rates of the drug war. In the Senate, he has consistently come down on the aggressive drug-warrior side of the legislative debate. He voted for some of the original mandatory minimum-sentencing schemes that today give America the ignoble world-record prison population. He sponsored the legislation that, against the best advice of both parties and even the CIA, empowered U.S. personnel to participate in the shoot-down of civilian aircraft over South America. Legislation that led to the downing of a plane of American missionaries, killing a woman and infant child.

Like with his decision to support the Iraq military misadventure, when John Kerry has fateful life and death decisions to make, he comes down on the side of aggression, and is often later proven wrong.

In that vein I have, for the election cycle, produced a web page to educate and focus people's energy. "John Kerry...Drug Warrior" at http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/kerr.htm

Kerry is on the wrong side of the drug-policy reform issue. Americans would do well to arm themselves with the facts before voting for Kerry against Bush. "Anybody but Bush" should at least mean somebody different from Bush.

Pat Rogers, Allentown, PA

OH, SHUT UP

Concerning the editors' reply regarding the usage of the word "irregardless" ("The Mail," 7/21): Instead of referring to the "good Merriam-Webster" dictionary with its longtime (since 1961, I believe) reputation for loosey-goosey descriptiveness, let's try the current edition of the prescriptive American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, in which the word is labeled as "nonstandard," which means it is generally considered unacceptable by educated speakers and writers. The label and definition are followed by the following: "Usage. Irregardless is a form that many people mistakenly believe to be a correct usage in formal style but in fact has no legitimate antecedents in either standard or nonstandard varieties of English."

As for the user "holding his head high among the world's grammarians," as the editors' reply put it, just which grammarians are they? Probably not many of them are on the AHDEL's well-known and highly respected Usage Panel, which would be something your anything-goes dictionary-of-choice could use.

David Bee, Brooklyn

NEO-CONNED

I can't say enough about William Bryk's superb "The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush" (8/4). At a time when we think everything that could have been said about the dreadful Bush administration has been said, Bryk gives us an insight into another dimension-namely, how non-conservative George Bush really is. Conservative writers like George Will and David Brooks have made allusions to this but then fail to say anything constructive. Will, for example, tells us in one article that Bush-and the country and world by implication-would be just fine if Bush dropped the "neo" from his ideology banner. But then George Will always had a problem confusing words with the reality they represent.

Bryk also gives American conservatives fair warning that "better one lost election than the continued empowerment of cynical men who abuse conservatism?" Conservatives who support Bush's reelection are living out a political death wish. Perhaps it's a fitting Darwinian end that, like the Neanderthal Man, they may die of their own stupidity.

Gerald S. Rellick, Santa Ana, CA

PALEONTOLOGIST

There can be no doubt that William Bryk's superb article is as redundantly eloquent as it is intellectually tenacious ("The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush," 8/4). We so-called "paleo-cons" all seem to display an immediate grasp of the obvious. In fact, I have the obvious by the ass with my left hand as I peck this out with the right even now.

Mace Clayton Price, Las Vegas

FOLLOW THE MULAH

The dissection of John Kerry's speech at the DNC was humorous (Matt Taibbi, "The Liberal Case Against Kerry," 8/4). This work could be performed on all political speeches with the same results. The point missed by Matt and every other commentator in the U.S. is that most, if not all of the supporters of both political parties are multi-millionaires. The differences are that those who support the Democrats are voting with their pocket books, to support a tax increase for the rich (themselves); whereas the Republicans and their supporters are voting to perpetuate and worsen the disproportionate tax decreases that George II gave to himself and his friends.

The difference is greed. "I got mine-let them eat cake." Where was that in your analysis?

Tom Boushel, Jacksonville, FL

THE CASE FOR KERRY

Just read Michelangelo Signorile's "A Curious Silence" (8/4). Mr. Signorile knows progress is incremental. I have valued Mr. Signorile's advocacy since his book Queer in America was first published in 1993. It is disheartening to hear him now fueling flames that may polarize the GLBT community in support of John Kerry.

The voting public is in a deadlock. The Republican Party will employ any traitorous tactics to maintain control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; the "fifth estate" is held hostage by corporate greed. Fanaticism is running rampant in the federal and state legislative offices. Isn't it enough that Log Cabin Republicans and pundits like Andrew Sullivan continue to support the Republican Party even though they have come out against the president's agenda to write discrimination into the Constitution of the United States?

When will my community step back and look at the big picture? Must everything we do as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people be a gay pride parade with visual images and polarizing sound bites that our enemy will use against our goal of full equality?

As a gay man living with AIDS, I know too well how to prioritize my battles to affect the best outcome. With three months to the November election, I think it is time we pull together and support John Kerry.

Alfred M. Roach, Manhattan

THE WINNER, WHITTLED

Matt Taibbi's "Liberal Case Against Kerry" (8/4) made me smile. I couldn't wait to get to the part where he submitted his final edit to the speech. I knew what to expect, but I was wrong: It was even shorter than I thought. I laughed, but it shows the sad state of affairs in our so-called democracy. I am a full-blown Kerry supporter, and have even gone so far as to keep a list of talking points for myself. But when I look at the list it is all about Bush and how truly bad he is. That's pretty sad.

Unfortunately, all Taibbi says is true.

Tom Brown, New Castle, PA

SILENCE STILL EQUALS DEATH

Regarding Michelangelo Signorile's "A Curious Silence" (8/4): I was a delegate at the DNC who attended the first GLBT caucus meeting with Barbara Boxer and Carol King on Monday. Carol King received a loud round of applause when she was first introduced; this applause was notably muted after she said that she disagreed with Kerry on the gay marriage issue.

I mentioned this to several people who attended the meeting. They said that they dared not disagree with Kerry because they do not want another four years of George W. Bush as president. They are paralyzed with fear that any criticism of Kerry could cause his defeat. They seem to have forgotten the lesson that the AIDS crisis has taught us: Silence equals death.

These delegates risk becoming the modern version of "Oreos"-gay on the outside and straight inside. I believe that we cannot be quiet about our disagreements with Kerry. I have no problem saying I support John Kerry, but I disagree with him on the issue of gay marriages. We cannot and should not remain silent.

Bill Siroty, Amherst, NH