WAR ON STRAIGHT MEN Articles have appeared in other publications about ...

| 17 Feb 2015 | 02:11

    MEN

    Articles have appeared in other publications about the war being waged on straight men in the media ["Hasbian Helper," Sept. 14]. I just can't believe you print this crap.

    Consider Judy McGuire's advice to a lesbian attempting to date men: Get with it, honey, McGuire tells her, men are "frat boys" who are "only looking at (her) boobies" and who only "hear half of what you say." Holy smokes, what an asshole bitch. Do people really expect helpful advice from this cow?

    Why don't you guys print a misogynist male version of this childish shit and see what kind of response you get from the readers? Oops, that would be sexist.

    David Foster, Yonkers

    WAR ON GAY MEN

    I was deeply offended by J.R. Taylor's piece calling for the straight takeover of a gay sex club ["A New Place for Straights," Sept. 14]. I am so tired of the idea that gay men exist to serve and entertain straight guys in carving out some dirty, little, misogynistic hole in the wall that little, straight boys can escape to. I also resent Taylor's implication that by being exposed (literally!) to gay men in their underground lair, he will somehow prove his masculinity without casting doubt on his straightness.

    He seems to equate gay sexuality with some kind of poisonous force that he is cool enough to survive and then brag about. If Taylor wants to act macho, breathe in some testosterone, talk about how he hates bitchy girls and grab his dick, that's fine.

    But can't he do that just about anywhere in this city? How about the locker room, the basketball court or the weight room at the YMCA? Maybe he should go hang out with lesbians if he's such a "regular" (read: clueless) guy and is so threatened by women.

    I'm guessing that Taylor was the guy in high school who hated all of us fags for getting along so well with the cute girls. If he wants to stroke his sensitive straight male ego, let him do it at home with a few beers and whatever straight friends he might have. We really don't want him in our club anyway.

    Jay Sommeil, Manhattan

    TICK TOCK, tick tock

    I'm enjoying the rapidly dwindling size of the Press, which I attribute to the liberal slant it has "enjoyed" since Russ Smith sold the paper. I remember when it was chockablock with ads from a myriad of city businesses.

    Now, of course, the main source of your revenue seems to come from the rear of the paper. Isn't this incongruent with the PC crap the paper espouses? Or do chicks with dicks get you a double score with EEO?

    Tick, tock, tick, tock.

    That's the sound of the clock ticking down the days the Press has left.

    Ron Malpeli, Hyde Park, NY

    TOTAL RACIST BULLSHIT

    With regards to the photo published of a Hispanic guy in your article on New Orleans, it's total racist bullshit! ["After the Flood," Sept. 7]. Poor white folks outnumber Hispanics ten to one. It would have been something if you would of printed a photo of poor white folks doing the same. You should have known better.

    Leo Garcia, via email

    THE CHUD LIFESTYLE

    How dare you print an article of such nature on "CHUDs!" ["The Coming C.H.U.D. Wars," Aug. 17]. A newspaper is supposed to be a point of reference by which people learn what goes on in the world. It's bad enough that our media censors and taints what we "learn" (which is definitely a form of mind control) but for the New York Press to promulgate horrible messages of discrimination to everyday people who might actually believe these printed words is despicable.

    Even if this is a joke, it's not funny. You describe tunnel dwellers as though they're wild beasts. Did you forget that you're talking about human beings? Just like your family, or your kids? If your flesh-and-blood chose to live underground, would you still be so ignorant?

    People who choose such a lifestyle are no better or worse than you or me-they're just different. And seeing as how no one has yet been appointed judge, jury, or God for all of humankind, passing judgment does not fall into any one of our civic duties.

    Furthermore, you perpetuate an underlying current of fear through your language: "sightings" (are we talking about UFOs?); "something evil was down there;" "this new breed knows enough to stay in the shadows," and "How to Survive a CHUD Encounter." In case you (a media-source) forgot, fear is what creates destruction in the world; slavery, war, racism, the fall of the Twin Towers, and disregard for an entire people who have been ravaged by Hurricane Katrina are just a few examples.

    Your article is no different than the KKK burning crosses and killing African American people, or terrorists flying planes into buildings. No action is so small that it does not matter whether it is performed with integrity. Because if you allow small actions to pass, eventually you will look the other way on larger actions as well because you are too pussy to uphold any type of decency, and thus your own integrity. The bottom line is life comes down to choice. Either you choose to be in integrity with empowering all people of the world to create a world that works, one in which everyone matters. Or you choose to continue perpetuating behavior that decimates families, communities and the world at large. In this article, the New York Press made the wrong decision!

    Jennifer Maple, via email

    BLATANTLY LAYING BARE

    Spencer Ackerman's article makes me wonder if there is ever such a thing as a justified war. Is it when Ackerman "feels" that a line has been crossed? ["Terror and Gliberalism," Sept. 14.]

    I feel there is a simpler standard: It can never be wrong to help free a people. Iraqis were manifestly not free under Saddam and by bringing free elections constitutions we clearly indicate we are doing everything possible to free the Iraqi people. Therefore, it is impossible that the war in Iraq was "wrong," as Ackerman claims.

    The same can be said in Vietnam. ÊWhile we failed in Vietnam to free people, the fact that 30 years of totalitarian horror were visited on Indochina is proof that what we were trying to accomplish was desirable. ÊThe prosperous and free existence of South Korea is proof that the intervention would have been justified if successful. The problem with Vietnam was not that it was morally unjustifiable. The problem was that it was too expensive for America considering the significant resources the Chinese and Russians were willing to pour into north Vietnam.

    The same "moral" and "cost" arguments could be made for Iraq. This is the only legitimate argument. Can America afford to bring Iraq to democracy? The actual question is: Would we be willing to bear the cost of dealing with Saddam Hussein in the future, especially if he had access to the full oil potential of his country in the interim?

    I think the answer to that is straightforward. The cost of interceding before Saddam obtained hundreds of billions in oil revenue from his developed oil fields was infinitely cheaper than the cost would have been after Saddam had that income. Whether Saddam spent that money on building his military, his WMD or even his infrastructure makes no difference. The cost of removing Saddam after 2003 and the sanctions were lifted would be enormous. Therefore, there was no alternative to removing Saddam.

    I'm sorry to lay bare Ackerman's article in such blatant way, but all people who espouse the view that it is better to let Saddam continue in power-whether they argue it was too costly to remove him, immoral to remove him or that it was a distraction-need to face the fact that Saddam could not be allowed to have hundreds of billions in oil revenue.

    John Mathon, Atherton, CA

    HIS DROOL BUCKET RUNNETH OVER

    What the fuck ever happened to free speech? [Our New Friend and How He Got His Dumb Ass Suspended," Sept. 14].

    You mean to tell me that this guy got suspended for speaking his mind? And got himself investigated too? You have got to be fucking with me! I guess the department of homeland security is really shitting bricks now that a former soldier (myself) has finally bucked up and said Bush sucks. Let me save them some time and the taxpayers some money. Bush sucks. There's no need to investigate it since it's so obvious.

    I don't give a god damn how many keyholes they look through to spy on me. Nine times out of ten when they look through my keyhole all they see is my own god damn eyeball staring back and winking! Which is followed promptly by a quick nasty remark like: Check again later and you might catch me beating off on the web cam! (Free show!) Them motherfuckers better get worried about us watching them!

    Once everyone figures out how much tax money they're wasting watching people jerk off on web cams they'll fire some of these government retards who got their job by fucking their boss!

    Now they're saying that the reason the military responded so late to the Katrina catastrophe was not because they are all in Iraq. Well, I have to agree with them. They responded so late because Bush sucks and didn't give a god damn. It's an admission of guilt.

    It's like saying, "No we had the military man power, we just wanted to wait until everybody was starved half the fuck to death before we got involved." This begs the question, why did you wait so long to deploy the military then?

    In his letter to the Press, Reed said : liberals "sit with drool buckets everyday waiting for something like this to happen so they can go immediately attack the president."

    I say: "You're god damn right. I'll use everything I can to get a Democrat elected next time. I want my fucking military back home as soon as possible. I want a new president god damn it!"

    Incidentally, my drool bucket runneth over thanks to you pal!

    James Wes, via email

    ACCORDING TO JENS CARSTENSEN

    I've never gotten the sense that Ray Nagin's death-toll prediction of 10,000 was ever reported in the press as incontrovertible ["Blame Bush," Sept. 14]. In fact, I don't think I've seen once in the press an inclusion of that (now seemingly-and thankfully) hysterical figure without some variation of the caveat "according to Mayor Ray Nagin."

    Similarly, if I were, say, a reporter writing an article on the 1995 Chicago heatwave, I might have used a turn of phrase such as "a heatwave that killed almost a thousand people, according to columnist Russ Smith," when the actual total was closer to 700.

    Jens Carstensen, Brooklyn

    A WORTHLESS HUMAN BEING

    There is no question that Russ Smith looks at the current occupant of the White House with rose-colored glasses ["Blame Bush, Sept. 14]. Smith says that Bush has no margin for error among the media elite. Which is not true. Dowd, for instance, has been much tougher on the Clintons than she has ever been on Bush. Also Bush can count on conservative columnists such as Smith, Will and Barnes no matter how badly he screws up. No democratic politician has this kind of amen corner.

    Smith writes with a straight face that historians will judge Bush as a visionary.

    No, Mr. Smith-historians will rank Bush with Grant and Harding as one of the worst presidents ever. The GOP showed its contempt for the American people by supporting such a clearly unfit man. Bush's resume consists of being a drunken bum, a failed businessman, someone who got rich from a sweetheart deal and a ceremonial position as governor of Texas. Prior to becoming president he showed no interest in domestic or foreign policy issues.

    Since his selection the Bush incompetence has contributed to the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11; countless deaths in Iraq and a botched FEMA effort in New Orleans. What's next for him to destroy?

    Smith writes that Clinton ignored the 1993 WTC bombing. But the Clinton administration hunted down and prosecuted those involved in the bombing from ringleader Ramzi Yousef on down. Bush still has not caught Bin Laden and allowed Bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora.

    Unlike Bush, Clinton thought FEMA performed an important function and therefore elevated the agency to cabinet status and appointed someone experienced in handling natural disasters to head it.

    Bush was slow to respond in New Orleans because he did not care. When it came to the hurricanes in Florida, a state whose electoral votes he needed, he responded very quickly.

    If I were Smith I would be ashamed to publicly embrace such a worthless human being.

    Reba Shimansky, NY, NY

    VISIONS OF HELL

    Let's forget about Katrina for a second. The day I am writing this, 150 people lost their lives for reasons directly or indirectly linked to Bush adventure in Iraq.

    Russ Smith claims that "I believe that historians will judge [President Bush] to have been a visionary chief executive" ["Blame Bush," Sept. 14].

    You tell those 150 people about Bush's visions. Visions of hell I'd say.

    Bill Maher got it exactly right when he characterized the president as a "catastrophe that walks like a man."

    I think Smith ought to go to "Eats & Drinks" were he belongs.

    Cesar Diaz, Spain

    PRAISE FROM THE SLIPSTREAM

    Normally I consider your paper's politics to be utterly foreign; much like George Carlin's, except not nearly as funny.

    And then: I read Tim Marchman's article about the disgrace in New Orleans and finally somebody hit every freakin' nail on the head! ["After the Flood," Sept. 7].

    Now stop preaching to the choir and get the word out into the mainstream!

    Steve Caputo, NJ

    HARRY SIEGEL BREAKS PROMISE AGAIN!

    (No wonder Rudy Bloomberg-Dinkins is his idol!)

    You all continue to treat me like I'm some fringe character, yet 100% of the time, I've proven the "conventional wisdom" and the "experts" wrong, and my last 2,000 predictions all came perfectly true. (Sadly, they were almost all negative.)

    (Remember when you all laughed off my Bernie Kerik-is-a-crook stories 5 years back?)

    (How about when I said I'd break records in the primary and you all laughed at "crazy" CXB?)

    WELL I HATE TO SAY "I TOLD YOU SO" FOR THE ZILLIONTH TIME?

    ?But I predicted PUBLICLY that Patronage Hire HARRY SIEGEL would be the Ferrer / Bloomberg / Rudy of the editorial world: unoriginal, stereotypical, brainless, humorless, dishonest, and corporate-ass-kissing.

    Harry, by contrast, promised that the NEW NYPress would look like no other paper you'd ever seen.

    I laughed and said his paper would be IDENTICAL to all papers in the world.

    And now, the 20/20 hindsight says?

    ?CXB read HARRY's mind, and Harry couldn't even read his own!

    FACT:

    In the current issue of NYPress, most of Harry's "cultural picks" are THE EXACT SAME ONES AS THE VOICE AND TIME OUT this week!!

    EX: HEY LOOK! It's a photo of the mediocre and retro GORE GORE GIRLS!

    The same act who is on the COVER of the Voice Choices!

    Good to see your paper will never resemble the Voice, Harry!

    (No wonder you keep chickening out of ALL offers to debate me publicly. Even YOU don't think you're very smart or honest or that you can hold your own against me.)

    (No wonder you're dad calls me a genius and thinks you're a doofus!)

    EX: REGINA SPEKTOR has already been in Rolling Stone, SPIN, and on TV.

    (Funny, I called Harry Siegel behind-the-curve 4 YEARS ago. Lucky guess, right?)

    Harry gives SPEKTOR a photo and nice write up? just as the Voice and Time Out have done!

    SUCH ORIGINALITY, HARRY!

    (The offer still stands, Harry: I will take your retarded and mentally-stunted sorry-ass OUT FOR SOME CULTURE and show you some NEW things around NYC that I guarantee you will like. What are you afraid of?)

    (You're the David Dinkins of the publishing world!)

    ALMOST ALL OF NYPress' PICKS this week are the MOST-HYPED crap in NYC, from the horribly conservative New Pornographers to the conservative and retro !!! to the conservative and retro Nashville Pussy, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, The Tubes, Steve Winwood [!],

    BrianJonestown Massacre, and more.

    Even his non-music PICKS are OBVIOUS and LEMMING-LIKE.

    Diane ARBUS???

    GAME OVER.

    CXB PROVED YET AGAIN THAT HARRY IS A TOTAL FAKE AND TOTALLY DUMB AND DISHONEST and that all of my predictions come true.

    Harry, you still have over one month to prove you're a better political reporter and editor than me.

    IF YOU DON'T BREAK A STORY AS BIG AS MY FIELDS' PHOTOGATE, YOU PROVE TO EVERYONE YET AGAIN THAT MY ESP IS DAMN GREAT AND THAT YOU ARE A PREDICTABLE SHEEP.

    [CXB gets his stuff together and heads out to go for a ride in a speedboat while your city dies.]

    Stupidity is NOT attractive, Harry (despite your dad's illustrious career).

    Christopher X. Brodeur, Manhattan