Cindy Can You Hear Me?; Armond Hearts Steven Way Too Much; Excellent Article, Ned; God's Hate Delivered; More...

MUGGER: As the former editor-in-chief of the Cleveland Free Times, which Village Voice Media sold down the river illegally, I couldn't agree with you more (1/15). In fact, I e-mailed Cynthia Cotts a couple of weeks ago and asked her myself when she was going to write about this unprecedented case. I'm still waiting.

David Eden, Cleveland

Tone Deaf

MUGGER: So you never stated that New York Press intended to topple the Voice. But you're just hairsplitting. I regularly read the Press in the 90s, when a frequent item in "MUGGER" was commentary on the Voice. Time and again you said the Voice had become so irrelevant it was going to collapse of its own mediocrity. And you made some good points. But clearly the spirit, if not the letter, of your comments was that the Voice was going to be replaced by the Press. That tone is obvious in your columns from that time, as a person can see from reading them.

Joe Flynn, Manhattan

We Guessed As Much

Prior to J.R. Taylor's article in New York Press, I was not aware of the correspondence with Robert Locke reported there ("New York City," 1/15). The views expressed in these e-mails by Robert Locke do not reflect mine in any way, shape or fashion.

David Horowitz, LA

Huston Has a Problem

Armond White has become the skipping record of movie criticism. Apparently he is physically incapable of writing a review that does not bring in some praise of Steven Spielberg's claptrap. The recent egregious example of this is White's review of The Son ("Film," 1/15), where he not only reiterates his defense of the horrid Minority Report (the worst Spielberg movie that people think is good, which White seems to recognize at some level because of his repeated defenses of this movie: maybe "the lady doth protest too much"), but also brings in Catch Me If You Can and his over-the-top father/son analysis of what is basically a straightforward enjoyable movie. White needs to place the needle on a non-Spielberg part of the record.

Mark R. Huston, Detroit

Hey Ned, Your Article Was Excellent

Please tell Ned Vizzini that his article about the WFMU-WFUV turf war was excellent ("New York City," 1/8).

Andy Feldman, Brooklyn

QED and Stuff

I recently had the pleasure of witnessing Dean Dean and the Sex Machines play, in all their ever-lovin' slopped-up, funked-down glory (George Tabb, "Music," 1/1). Unlike the pale, overbred prog-rock weenies who wrote in last week, who apparently base their decisions to see live music on the opinions of some wanker in a largely irrelevant weekly paper, I saw a band having a rip-snortin' good time, playing the rock 'n' roll like it owed 'em money. Judging by the healthy crowd of happily bobbing heads, I wasn't the only one having a sweaty blast. I don't care what this band thinks about its music, yo, I just wanna hear 'em play it again.

Heidi B. Grygiel, Brooklyn

Remedios Reading

Wow. Remedios Cruz sure rips Jill Morley a new one over her letter to your paper ("The Mail," 1/15). That Remedios must really know good writing, what with that knack for "excessive-use-of-the-hyphen" and "using/the/forward/slash/to/spew/hatred" and all. Call me crazy, but it sure seems like that Remedios has read everything that Ms. Morley has ever written. That Jill Morley is "one-lucky-lady!"

Judy Sipowicz, Manhattan

Can't Get Rid of Him That Easy

MUGGER: I read and enjoy your column every week. I hope your selling the paper does not mean the end of it. I know that taking your enterprise from startup to success has been a long road. I congratulate you on the quality of your paper and wish you success in any other venture you attempt.

Kim Blue, Houston

God's Love Shines Through Tony

Michelangelo Signorile: To be pro something or other is one thing, but to be anti Catholic is yet another ("The Gist," 1/15). Practicing homosexuals are an abomination, and an affront to nature. For your suggestion that the Catholic Church has animosity against a "gay" movement, that is a bald-faced lie! The church has rules against practicing homosexuals and those who would lead them down the path of ruin by trying to convince them and mostly youngsters that degeneracy is some sort of "lifestyle" choice. You can't make a silk purse out of a degenerate's ear or all homosexuals would be carrying one.

Tony Mangan, Santa Clara, CA

Amen

Mike Signorile: Thanks so much for your column ("The Gist," 1/15). I find myself conflicted. On one hand, I hope that someone will come forward and confirm that Father Judge was one of his greatest lovers and he misses him something awful. On the other hand, I agree with you?let the great Father rest in peace. Why can't people just accept the fact that gay people are just as great as everyone else, and that whether they do or do not have an active sex life is really none of anyone's business! Father Judge gave his life to comfort those people hurt in the attacks, and he happened to be gay, gay being the operative word, meaning gay people can and do live in this world and give and care just as well as any hetero. What in the world does a person's sexuality have to do with his kind deeds? There was also that passenger on the plane in Pennsylvania who was gay, and I bet they don't say he was sexually active because he made no bones about his life when he was alive. The point being, they both gave their lives to save others?end of story! Thanks for the wonderful writing and keep up the good work.

Warren B. Faulconer, Charleston, SC

Rubbernecking

The sporadic MUGGER Junior comic always seems to inspire the queasy feeling I get when watching pro-life parents stick anti-abortion protest signs in their kids' hands and send them marching around the clinics. It's sad and more than a little creepy. A child will do anything for Dad's approval, even act as a mouthpiece for issues they don't care about or understand. Ick. I really doubt the kid gives a shit about Joe Lieberman ("Idiot Man," 1/15) or any other of your conservative bugaboos. If you can't stick to your column, MUGGER, start your own damned comic. Let your kid enjoy his childhood.

Lawrence Renwick, Manhattan

Vows Is Vows

Mike Signorile: I'm sure Father Judge was a wonderful priest and a wonderful man, and I really don't care about his sexuality ("The Gist," 1/15)?except for the fact that, as a priest, he takes a vow of celibacy. I'm married these 20+ years and that vow means a helluva lot to me; is it unfair to say that I think the same of men who violate their marriage vows as I do of priests who violate their vows to the church? Again, I don't care to know anything more about the good Father. Let him rest in peace. But you see, Signorile?in the end, it does matter.

Ray Martin, Ridgefield, CT

Cletus Stepped Up!

Charlie Rangel really didn't mean it about reinstating the draft ("MUGGER," 1/8). It was just a political ploy. It's hard to get any duty out of a reluctant soldier. Someone in there who didn't want to be and who was against the purpose would not only be no help, but would be an active hindrance. It's been a long time since I was in the Army (October 1942 until June 1949), but I served in Germany as a medical officer from October 1947 until June 1949. It was all volunteer. I had a somewhat dim view of some of those teenage boys from Appalachia. We had an explosion in a chemical factory across the river from Mannheim and a bunch of these boys who I thought were so sorry went in there with bulldozers and other heavy equipment to save a bunch of trapped German workers. So a bunch of goof-offs turned out to be heroes. No enlisted men or officers, other than medical officers, were in there involuntarily.

I had obligated service, but I never felt resentful about rendering service as an Army of the United States officer. I have heard some retired generals advocate universal military service, but Donald Rumsfeld and others do not want a volunteer army. They would undoubtedly get some loudmouth antiwar people if we had a draft. Of course, that would suit people like Rangel and others very well. So far as casualties are concerned, I recently saw an account stating that casualties of blacks and Hispanics were lower than their percentage in the population and their percentage in the services.

Donald W. Bales, Kingsport, TN

Harrasing Seitz

If Matt Zoller Seitz can't get the plot to an hour-and-a-half cop movie straight, how am I supposed to take his opinion about the film seriously? I saw Narc this weekend ("Film," 1/8) before reading Seitz's review. If I had read it before, I would have thought I'd bought a ticket for the wrong movie, since the plot certainly deviates from Seitz's synopsis. First, there is a minor mistake. Tellis (Jason Patric) does shoot a drug dealer in the beginning of the movie, inadvertently wounding a pregnant woman. It is clearly stated in a followup scene that the woman lived but her baby died. Seitz's version of the scene is this: "From its handheld opening foot chase, which sees undercover operative Tellis (Patric) chasing a flipped-out druggie through a housing project and accidentally shooting a pregnant woman to death..."

Secondly, there is a major mistake. Seitz gets the thrust of the entire plot wrong. Tellis is not brought in to investigate Oak. The cops don't even want Tellis working with Oak. It is Tellis who insists on bringing Oak back onto the case. The department brings Tellis in because he had cultivated reliable drug contacts in his previous undercover work. According to Seitz, Tellis begins to begrudgingly like the subject of his investigation (Oak). Oak is never the focus of the investigation. This means that Seitz was watching the entire movie following a plot that simply was not part of the movie.

Movie reviews certainly aren't life and death, but I just find it incomprehensible that someone is asking us to take his opinion of a film seriously when he couldn't even follow the film! Did he see it? If so, did he step out for popcorn and become confused? As the editor of the paper, I just thought you'd want to be made aware of incorrect statements in your paper. I certainly do enjoy it, otherwise! Have a good day.

Joe Harras, Manhattan

Matt Zoller Seitz replies: Harras is right about the description of the mother's shooting. But in a larger sense, his letter is splitting hairs. Narc is, in its heart, not a film about two cops investigating a fellow cop's murder; it is a film about one cop investigating a fellow cop who might be a murderer. In my piece, I never said that Patric's character, Tellis, was brought in by the department specifically to investigate Liotta's character, Oak. However, Tellis and Oak partner up within a few screen minutes of Tellis getting his new assignment, and as the tale unfolds, Tellis' suspicions do fall on Oak, and the audience's attention goes there, too. Narc's narrative quickly develops two strands: Oak and Tellis' investigation of various suspects (which might be a red herring designed to distract Tellis from the possibility of Oak's guilt) and Tellis' inquiry into Oak's history, character and mindset. Moreover, the film invites us to consider Oak as a suspect right off the bat, by establishing Oak as a loner, a violent hothead and somewhat of a pariah. (Simply by casting Liotta, a psycho specialist who played a corrupt cop in Unlawful Entry, the filmmaker guarantees that we will suspect Oak from the moment he appears.) As Narc progresses, Tellis and Oak's investigation into Oak's old partner's murder becomes an investigation of Oak. The bulk of Narc fixates on Tellis' growing fear that Oak killed his partner?a fear that audiences are primed to feel long before Tellis gets there. The nutshell description in my review's opening paragraph is accurate: "A young cop investigating a veteran suspected of murdering a fellow officer."

A Spoonful of Celibacy Helps The Gayness Go Down

While Michelangelo Signorile's point about the double standard involved in referring to "gay but celibate" priests is well taken ("The Gist," 1/15), the overall point of his article is flawed. He wonders what actual evidence we have that Mychal Judge, for example, was celibate. In reality, we have perfect evidence: Judge was, and held himself out to be, a Catholic priest. Celibacy is part of the definition of that job. As Signorile admits, he has zero evidence that Judge was anything but that. Judge's word, explicit or implied, should be therefore enough. To insinuate otherwise insults the overwhelming majority of Catholic priests, gay and straight, who keep their vows, even if they might personally disagree with the church on homosexuality or celibacy.

I'd also like to know what Alexander Cockburn ("Wild Justice," 1/15) is smoking that has him convinced that "the Vietnamese...beat us militarily," especially when he himself admits that political pressure in the U.S. played no small part in our loss. Or, for that matter, whatever convinces him that Communist regimes (North Korea, Vietnam) are automatically assumed virtuous, when quite the opposite is true.

Nathan Lamm, Flushing

 

Back Down, Hawk

What compels a president to demand an unwarranted war? What motivates the alleged leader of the Free World to endorse plunging our planet into insane slaughter? George W. Bush hasn't proven the need for another war on the decimated people of Iraq. Certainly, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. There are many leaders who fit that description. However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we sold him the weaponry we're purportedly going to war over. So far, George Bush hasn't presented a "smoking gun" from Iraq. Where's the evidence Saddam Hussein still harbors weapons of mass destruction?

America hasn't been attacked by Iraq. There's no proof Hussein has the capacity to do so. There's no proof of an Iraqi military buildup, except to defend their land against our invasion. No Middle Eastern nation anticipates conflict with Iraq, except perhaps Israel. Even this scenario is expected only in response to an American attack on Iraq.

Humanity has overwhelmingly rejected George Bush's war manifesto. Millions march every week against this senseless bloodlust. The facts before us are clear: Iraq has little defense against any degree of American aggression and overkill. The first Iraq war made sure of this. A second Iraq war wouldn't be a war at all. It would simply be incomprehensible mass murder. Our born-again Christian president must be forced to face the question: If Jesus Christ were alive today, would he approve Bush's adventurism or would he support Iraq's right to self-determination? America should be encouraging democracy in the Middle East, not imperialism.

Despite George Bush's furious efforts to Hitlerize Hussein for the Sept. 11 attacks, there's no evidence Saddam was involved. Despite the fact America destroyed Iraq 12 years ago and now controls most of the airspace over that humbled nation, Bush persists in shrieking that Hussein's ready to rule the world. And despite the fact an invasion of Iraq would be a violation of international law, our oblivious president urges forward his ruthless war plans.

Preparation for and prosecution of a war on Iraq hasn't been justified. The legal, moral and popular support for such an action doesn't exist. An American victory in Iraq isn't in doubt. The only question is: Would anyone constructively benefit from butchering the Iraqi people?

Incredibly, it's been argued the survivors of an Armageddon-like attack on Iraq would be grateful. Grateful for what? This is the same irrational logic that declares any survivors of a nuclear war and winter the "winners." The winners of what? A scorched-earth panorama rivaling the Martian landscape? No, the Iraqi people don't support such madness. In fact, there's ample evidence an unprovoked attack could turn the entire Middle East into a World War battleground. The president wants humanity to ignore this enormous risk. Why?

No one will benefit from this immoral war, not even George W. Bush. His father was soundly rejected for reelection after his so-called victory in the first Iraq war. At least he was able to misconstrue and cover up enough information to wage the war successfully. George H.W. Bush was able to stand on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait for justification. George Jr. has no similar fig leaf. Yet he intends to invade Iraq without just cause and in the face of universal condemnation. His evil arrogance will set the stage for his defeat in 2004 or, perhaps, impeachment.

If America invades Iraq without some modicum of moral and legal pretense, we'll be placed on the wrong side of history. If George W. Bush insists on this irrational action, he must be informed of the severe consequences. For the most part, the media has supported the president in his war effort while quietly detailing the pros and cons. It's time for the media to get off the fence and clearly explain to the American people the dire prospects. Unleashing an unstoppable chain reaction of hostilities is a doomsday equation.

To suggest America can impose democracy and economic liberalism on the Middle East is sheer lunacy. The Arab people will make the appropriate adjustments to global trends at their own pace and discretion. The imperialist agenda of the Bush administration must be exposed for its departure from democratic and moral principle. George W. Bush assumed the presidency under the mantra he's a uniter, not a divider. Halfway through his twisted term, the American people have never been more divided.

War is no longer an answer for what ails humanity. War is completely obsolete in the global village and Information Age. The senseless slaughter of our fellow human beings, whether they wear military uniforms or not, is monstrous madness. This sickness must be ended if global peace and prosperity are to emerge.

Our World War industry routinely boasts it expects to raid the U.S. treasury for $500 billion over the next decade for Star Wars alone. It intends to promote war and the rumors of war for many profitable years into the future. The time has come for the American people to decide whether human destiny lies in the advancement of universal peace or the curse of endless bloodshed.

Franklin L. Johnson, Manhattan