MUGGER Jr. Shoots Back; Well Done x 2, Mr. Bryk; P Love/P U; Caldwell Gets Some Lovin'; More...
Last week's anti-"Idiot Man" letter ("The Mail," 1/22) ticked me off to a limit that I can barely handle. If you're reading this, Lawrence Renwick (if that is your real name), my dad had nothing to do with the creation of "Idiot Man" or this strip in particular. I dreamt up the idea of a politically incorrect idiot who "fights for his right to party." Oh, and I do give a "shit" about Sen. Lieberman. He's tried to censor videogames like Mortal Kombat, as well as movies and music. So the next time you crave attention, take it out on McDonald's, asshole.
N. Smith, Manhattan
Bet People Are Dying To Get In
William Bryk: Your articles about Edward Ferrero and the Battle of the Crater were outstanding ("Old Smoke," 1/8 & 1/22). As a tour guide in Green-Wood Cemetery, I'm pleased that you included the fact that Ferrero is buried here. The cemetery is open to the general public free of charge. Visitors are welcome and no reservations are required. I'm curious about the remains of the Crater. If I were to visit that site today, what would I see? Is there still an enormous crater in the earth? Has it been filled in? Has it eroded?
Alfred Kohler, Brooklyn
William Bryk replies: The Crater is part of the Petersburg National Battlefield, which is under the supervision of the National Park Service. Its website is www.nps.gov/pete and its e-mail address is PETE_Superintendent@nps.gov. The mailing address is Petersburg National Battlefield, 1539 Hickory Hill Rd., Petersburg, VA 23803-4721, 804-732-3531. Mr. Kohler may find some photographs of the Crater as it was and as it is online at www.craterroad.com/ craterbattle.html.
Beans, Beans, Is Good for Dave's Heart
Christopher Caldwell: I loved the latest article ("Hill of Beans," 1/22). Absolutely spot-on. Bravo. Did I mention I loved the article?
David Rogers, Austin, TX
Don't Even Joke
The editors reply: Actually, it was the scales of justice in Doug Allen's illustration for "Hill of Beans."
Gotcha
As a designer, I am constantly amazed and delighted by Tony Millionaire's excellent pictorial composition and brilliant draftsmanship?but sometimes his thinking transcends even those fine skills. His strip, ("Maakies," 1/22), wherein a figure is fussing over something trivial?but who then turns to face the raw landscape, reminded me of my favorite Jane Austen quote: "What are men to rocks and mountains?"
Seth Joseph Weine, Manhattan
P Funk
P Love
Thanks for turning one of New York's most embarrassing eyesores into a real newspaper. That old, pixelated New York Press logo said what, exactly?that this newspaper can be as visually confusing as even the worst tv? The new, clean, classic "ink-press" look of your latest issue suits the content and ethos of New York Press so much better. And I'm not embarrassed to carry it around anymore.
Douglas Rushkoff, Manhattan
That Explains What We Found In That Drawer
MUGGER: In a recent column ("MUGGER," 1/15) you ask, regarding Voice "Press Clips" columnist Cynthia Cotts, "Where was Cotts 15 years ago when New York Press began publishing in Manhattan? Hard to tell and barely worth the research, but it's clear she wasn't one of the paper's first readers." Hard to tell? Don't you remember? She worked at Spy magazine when they occupied the Puck Bldg.'s ninth-floor offices before you guys moved in. Research easily rendered.
Henry Alvine Rosenfeld, Santa Monica, CA
Gypsies!
Michelangelo Signorile writes that the University of Michigan "?doesn't have a quota system?" but merely "?gives points to members of minorities" ("The Gist," 1/22). First of all, the University of Michigan only gives points to certain minorities, certainly not Korean-Americans, Jews or Gypsies. Secondly, Signorile overlooks the fact that the University of Michigan decides on how many more points to give blacks and American Indians by figuring out, on the basis of the prior year's class, how they can reach the approximately 8 percent "minority enrollment" that they are seeking. If that is not a quota I don't know what is! Whatever happened to disregarding race, creed or place of national origin?
Peter B. Dunn, Manhattan
Spielberg Wouldn't Say an Unkind Word About Anybody
It's difficult to take Armond White's review of City of God too seriously ("Film," 1/22)?not because of anything he says about the movie, but because of his unmotivated attack on Stanley Kubrick. White writes that critics and moviegoers respond "only...to [Kubrick's] technical flamboyance," but that's a vast oversimplification that a serious (and brilliant) filmmaker like Kubrick doesn't deserve.
In an interview with Jeremiah Kipp conducted for the website Senses of Cinema, White states that people "don't appreciate [film] as a visual art form, which is what it primarily is... [People] still think of movies as stories, but they're not." Few filmmakers understood this notion better than Kubrick, who always strove to express his ideas visually. Yes, he was certainly technically impressive, and I'm sure "film geeks," as White dubs them, are quite in awe of this fact?but Kubrick's technical virtuosity never got in the way of the ideas he wanted to convey; instead, it always served to reinforce them. I know that White's idol, Pauline Kael, often dismissed Kubrick's ideas because she viewed them as cynical and misanthropic, but that's an easy way out of analyzing the complex work of a master artist; saying that 2001 proves only that the subtitle of Dr. Strangelove (How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) was "unironic," for example, completely negates the fact that Kubrick was one of the only directors intelligent enough to bother to examine the connections between societal "progress" and technological "innovation"?that Kubrick acknowledged the importance of the little "toys" he supposedly loved so dearly (and anyone who thinks these technological innovations haven't affected our society is clearly fooling him or herself). Like White's heroes, Spielberg and De Palma (who both owe a great deal to Kubrick's visual pizzazz?see Mission to Mars or A.I.), Kubrick knew the importance of technique in the art of filmmaking, but that doesn't mean he had anything to do with MTV fatuousness?he was no "hauteur," as White describes him.
Why does White consider De Palma's infatuation with great, "flashy" cinematic technique any less an example of "style over substance" than Kubrick's?and how could anyone say Kubrick favored style over substance, anyway? I doubt De Palma would have very many bad things to say about Kubrick's stupendous body of work?I know Spielberg wouldn't.
As always, a response (elaboration?) would be appreciated.
Matthew E. Goldenberg, Manhattan
Armond White replies: Thanks for illustrating my Kubrick-as-godhead point, Mr. Goldenberg. You seem so caught up in the cult of Kubrick (and technology) that the human and social issues of City of God are of no concern.
Bet You're a Riot at Parties
Re Tim Hall's piece, "Fox 5 Fear Factory" ("Daily Billboard," 1/14). Actually, 20-degree weather does count as severe, in New York City, anyway. The average January high for NYC is 38 degrees; high temperatures lately have been in the low 20s. That's a difference of about 15 degrees. Add 15 degrees to the average NYC July high temperature of 85 degrees and you get 100 degrees. So the current arctic blast is the equivalent of 10 consecutive 100-degree summer days. That's fairly extreme for a usually temperate climate.
Benjamin Kessler, Brooklyn
There Was an Old Man From Artesia...
I just read Mike Signorile's "The Quota Code" ("The Gist," 1/22). I'm wondering where I can read more of this author's humor. Perhaps he writes for Letterman or Leno. Anyway, it's amazing how some writers have the gift of turning out absolutely ludicrous prose and making it sound as though they are serious.
Ralph E. Hawk, Artesia, CA
Poll Position
MUGGER: You wrote: "...the mainstream media's conviction that all Republicans are racist." This is a statement that is as profoundly paranoid as it is false. In fact, Stanley Crouch and Bob Herbert were the only two mainstream voices who called Trent Lott on his cutting-edge Confederate politics and associations years before the rest of the media got on that bandwagon. Now all of a sudden you say the media has indicted all Republicans? Please, do yourself a favor, get a grip and take that chip off your shoulder. No one is accusing Jeb Bush, J.C. Watts, Justice Thomas or Sens. Hagel, Frist, Snowe, Campbell, McCain?in fact no one in the mainstream media is accusing the vast majority of Republicans of racism. Those charges are reserved for the few like Lott, ex-Democrats who left their party out of opposition to civil rights. Oh, and I guess John Ashcroft, too. Maybe he's not a racist but he's at the very least incredibly insensitive as it's well documented that he associates with the same neo-Confederate crew that Lott does.
Even if you are right, which you are not, wouldn't it be better to actually do something about that erroneous perception instead of just whining about it? How about donating a little bit of your newly won free time to organize a voter-registration drive in some of our low-turnout minority communities? Publicize your efforts in that arena and folks will know that all Republicans aren't racists. Please consider.
Robert Prichard, Manhattan
We're Beginning to Like You, Franklin
As we remember Martin Luther King Jr., there are many reasons why Americans should be ashamed of the sad state of our nation. Americans should be ashamed that:
Our $400 billion military budget is out of proportion to any honest assessment of global risk. Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech was met with Robert Kennedy's murder two months later. We support militarism's growth, even though this will lead to endless war, all the time.
George W. Bush is anywhere near the Oval Office, let alone in control of "The Football." We accept the president's wild tax-cut schemes without demanding he inform us how we'll pay for them. We refuse to admit that mass militarism, martial law and total surveillance are the bases for dictatorship, not democracy. Bush attacked affirmative action to pacify his redneck base in response to Trent Lott's political suicide.
Roe v. Wade is still an unsettled issue on its 30th anniversary. We believe the death of the church/state separation doctrine will somehow make us a better nation. Our school system is more segregated today than at any time before the landmark Brown v. Board of Ed. decision.
Corporate criminals are walking free and their firms continue to get government contracts. Our immoral war in Iraq will be on innocent Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein. Many of us pretend global warming and its dire consequences are hoaxes. We deny ourselves universal healthcare, even though we can afford it. We accept the convoluted equation that money equals speech. We believe the death penalty deters crime, although there's no evidence to support this conclusion. We endorse policies to force "democracy" onto other people, whether they believe in it or not. We accept great poverty, homelessness and millions without healthcare in history's richest nation. We mention George Bush's name and the word "leadership" in the same sentence. We lead the world in selling weapons, instead of books and bread, to poor countries. We find relief in the sound of America's soul being flushed down the toilet of universal condemnation.
If Dr. King were alive today, he would be in tears. The unspeakable insanity gripping our great nation should make us all weep. And after we've had a good cry, everyone should get angry. We should be upset to the point of getting off our comfortable, couch-potato butts to do something, anything, to save our nation from the savages in charge. Dr. King would remind us we're a good and decent people who truly believe we can do better than this. He would calmly encourage us to search our souls for the strength to protest the injustices in our land with both word and deed. He would admonish us first to dig two graves before embarking on a war of revenge. And, most important, he would solemnly proclaim that the only way to peace is through acts of faith, hope, love and charity, not war.
Dr. King was more than a leader. He was a champion. Any leader can articulate our problems and their potential solutions. Only a champion has the spiritual power to inspire people to face the unknown for an opportunity to construct a better tomorrow.
Before we start another war over weapons we cannot seem to find, let's remove the warheads in the White House. They're a greater threat to our security than any of the mystery munitions in Iraq. At the very least, we know who and where our warheads are.
Franklin L. Johnson, Manhattan
Another Vote for Beatification
Re Mike Signorile's article two weeks ago ("The Gist," 1/15). Too much information to be amusing, and I see Father Mychal laughing too. The relevant point you made?that it's homophobic to attach the word "celibate" to a his name simply because he was gay?is true. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that a gay priest can't be abstinent?
He was one of the most sincere men I've ever met and I believe that he took his vow of celibacy seriously. I met Mychal at a time when many people wouldn't talk to me. They were afraid of me and thought I was insane. Father Mychal saved my sanity by listening, helping and caring for me after my lover of 15 years was brutally murdered. The DA said the killing was one of the most bizarre homicides in the history of New York City, but for their own reasons would not classify it as a hate crime. Mychal was there for me and helped me make the big decision to move back into the apartment?the scene of the crime.
Father Mychal blessed the house. I will always carry the healing power of that day in my heart. A year later, I approached him to perform my next marriage. He did a masterful job. Everyone was quite moved. For most of the people there in 1989 it was the first gay marriage they had witnessed. He continued to support me, especially after my mate died of AIDS in 1998. He was always a concerned friend?dropping in, writing notes and supporting my art. What I remember the most is the joy I felt around him.
Mychal never struck me as being closeted and I don't think that he would mind me telling you. His presiding at the Holy Union was never a secret. Now, however, most people would rather not know that information, which, again, I find amusing. In my book, he is a saint.
Gregory Maskwa, Manhattan
Depends on Your Definition of "Is"
Mike Signorile: Very good article on this subject. I am wondering if you have any awareness of a letter that was in the New York Times sometime after Sept. 11, in which a so-called friend of Father Judge's bemoaned what he thought was a smearing of Father Judge just because he was being described as gay in the press. If I remember correctly (this is vague in my mind now), this friend was upset because, by his reckoning, the description in the press of Father Judge as "gay" was a smear, implying that he wasn't celibate. The old gay-equals-sex thing.
I'm not entirely sure of my facts here, because I have never been able to find this letter again (poor skill with search engines, etc.). It seems to me that this letter may be an example of the issues you are describing in your article. My own take on this is that far too many of the press are way too deferential to priests, cardinals, etc. That old fear-of-God legacy that they got from the nuns? Of course they all think they grew out of this when they grew up and became journalists.
If you by any chance know of this letter I would appreciate your letting me know. I am following the news on the Catholic Church scandals and their scapegoating of gay priests and I'd like to have this letter in my file of tidbits, etc. I am always amazed at how brazenly ignorant and confused the church and the clergy are about these concepts of "sex" and "sexual-orientation." You'd almost think they had no idea that they are not the same thing. They see two gay folks holding hands and it's a sex act. Kissing?hello?is a sex act. Eye contact is a sex act.
I remember William Bennett pontificating (on Tim Russert's show) that the scandals are principally a homosexual-seminary problem. His ultimate indictment of gay clergy as the problem was that gay seminarians were being allowed to be "seen" in gay bars. Just being gay and being "seen" in a gay bar is an unchallenged indictment on Russert's show. A priest in a straight bar is having a drink. A priest in a gay bar is a sex act!
Of course Russert was in no mood to challenge Bennett. I have more than once seen him make reference to his Catholic upbringing and education, and it usually sounds so lighthearted, innocent and joking (usually something like how tough those nuns and priests were). I've seen him get downright nervous and bubbly when he's introducing a priest. I grew up in a liberal Catholic climate and when I hear this nervous kind of laughter around priests and the subject of the church, I often can't help but think that what I'm really hearing is that suppressed fear and deference that the church bred so quietly and effectively in so many.
Jim Hennegan, Putnam, CT