Fond Adieux to Caldwell and "Beans"; You'll Get No Apologies from Armond; Nice Breslin Whackjob, MUGGER; Christians Ain't No Talibaners, Signorile (Except to the Athiests); Taki's Torture Prose; Viveros-Fauné Remains Jug-Stupid; More
Missing Caldwell
Christopher Caldwell: I liked it ("Hill of Beans," 1/9). Thank you. I'll miss you. Good luck.
Bob Quarm, Spanaway, WA
He'd've Been Outraged If We'd'd Deleted It
MUGGER: Please stick to criticizing the press, which you apparently have some aptitude for. Your naivete regarding politics and economics is preposterous (1/9). The big finance companies, which directly account for something like 15 percent of all the jobs in New York City, will absolutely relocate some of their offices outside of the city. But not because people are scared of terrorist attacks.
The game for these companies is about wringing tax breaks and other concessions from local governments, and the fact is that New York cannot afford the tax breaks right now. Jersey City, to name just one possible alternate site, has been hungry to attract more of these businesses for years and will most likely seize this opportunity.
And your assertion that tyros looking to make a fortune on Wall Street will demand to stay in the city so that they can work 16-hour days and have fun is risible. People will move to where the jobs are. If you need evidence, how "swinging" do you think the Palo Alto environs were when thousands of young people looking to make a fortune moved there in the mid-90s?
Finally, I am astounded that Alexander Cockburn has outlasted Christopher Caldwell. And I know it was his last column, but I am outraged that a double contraction ("they'd've") was allowed to be printed. Is John Strausbaugh on vacation?
Jabairu Tork, Boston
Russ Smith replies: This correspondent from Boston is no doubt better-versed in economics than I am. However, in the last generation New York City has faced two similar crises in the financial market: the looming bankruptcy in '75 and the crash of '87. It was predicted in both those cases that New York would be deserted, that the normal influx of college grads would seek their fortunes elsewhere. The booms of the 80s and 90s, and attendant work-hard-play-hard stories of Manhattan traders, proved that wrong. I suspect that'll be the case by 2003, the attractions of Silicon Alley notwithstanding.
John Strausbaugh replies: Tork needs to lighten up. We allow the occasional double contraction, and even?heavens?a split infinitive when a casual or colloquial style seems appropriate.
And Full of Beans
Christopher Caldwell: You did great work, and you will be missed. May your future be bright.
And memo to Lisa Kearns, subject: Juan Gonzalez ("Daily Billboard," 1/9): Get over it...and be glad you did. Juan Gooooooonnnnnnnzalez isn't worth $12 million+ per year. "Baseball is life..."
Tracy Meadows, Brenham, TX
Hooked on Phonics
Spencer Ackerman should indeed have "little good to say about [his] education" ("Live & Learn," 1/9). He can scarcely write a coherent English sentence.
Justine Nicholas, Brooklyn
Don't Quote CSN&Y To Us, Clyde
Jim Knipfel lets people know he disapproves of the crackdown on public pot smoking in his "Daily Billboard" piece (1/9). I disagree. Hey, back in the 60s and 70s I experimented with reefers and so did many others. But in the wake of 9/11 and the "New Responsibility" we boomers have learned to move on. Now is the time to "Teach Our Children Well." Like Anna Quindlen, we were young once, but like Hillary, we have matured.
Tom Phillips, Manhattan
Freaks Like Us
God bless New York Press and Jordan Mamone for finally giving No Trend the ink they deserve ("Music," 1/9). As a Maryland expatriate living in Durham, NC, I've often been known to drunkenly espouse the greatness of No Trend to senseless Southerners. I was a freshman in high school when a senior from my neighborhood named Jim Long slipped me a copy of No Trend's debut album. I have not been the same since. Freaks they were, indeed. Freaks like me.
Greg Barbera, Durham, NC
Don't Hold Your Breath
ARMOND WHITE: Describing Ridley Scott as a racist ("Film," 1/2) because he cast nearly all white actors to portray the soldiers in the film Black Hawk Down is unwarranted and a cheap shot. You claim he was "misrepresenting the soldiers of various denominations who served in Somalia" and you are totally wrong there. This film is a depiction of a true event, which was chronicled in exacting detail by the author who wrote the book on which the film was based. If you did a little research and bothered to actually read the book you would find that of the 120-man Ranger unit that was sent to Somalia only two were black. So it turns out that Scott was really presenting an accurate representation of what transpired. I hope this revelation does not cause you to feel guilty. You can always apologize to Mr. Scott.
George Fattell, Manhattan
Armond White replies: No apologies.
Beheading Breslin
MUGGER: Enjoyed your whacking of Jimmy Breslin (1/9). He also made this comment in a column, perhaps the one you cite: "We know how we acted in New York and doubt if it could happen anyplace else. A woman from the University of Richmond, a psychologist of the South, said, 'If this was a NASCAR crowd, there would be panic.' As I pointed out in a humbler forum: 'Jimmy, my boy, your psychologist is nuts. As any fool knows, NASCAR fans pay $80 a head in the hope of seeing big crashes.'"
Dave Shiflett, Midlothian, VA
Keep Dreamin'
MUGGER: I thought I was the only one who thought that way about Jimmy Breslin. Thanks. Could anyone you know encourage him to bequeath his space to a more relevant columnist?
Craig Devitt, Pike Road, AL
Under a Rock in Marion
Mike Signorile: How dare you equate Christian groups with the Taliban. There is no comparison ("The Gist," 1/9). I have never heard of any occasion where any Christian group was part of killing those who were homosexual or of another faith. Granted, we may not agree with some other beliefs or lifestyles, but no one has ever advocated the killing of such individuals. And the last time I heard, freedom of speech was still allowed in this country, as well as freedom of opinion. There also is no law that prevents any American from voicing his opinion and contacting his congressman if he feels a law is against his religious beliefs, such as abortion. You seem to forget our forefathers founded this country on religious principles. As much as you revisionists abhor that thought, you can't ignore it. And as much as we may not agree with the government on its position on abortion, homosexuality, etc., you don't see any Taliban antics. You, on the other hand, appear to be promoting that tactic against Christians. It would appear as if every Christian were jailed or killed, it would be too soon for you. Mr. Signorile, you have the right to your opinion as we do, but to dare to equate them with the Taliban, who have murdered people for ages, is absurd.
Maria Russell, Marion, CT
Ip, Ip, Hooray
Mike Signorile: I just read your article "The Real American Taliban" ("The Gist," 1/9) and want to tell you "Bravo!" for writing this clever and insightful piece. As an atheist, I have always noticed that the most hateful and judgmental people are always the most religious. I, too, saw the parallels between religious fanaticism overseas and here in North America, and am glad that you have opened the eyes of others with your article.
I believe that the three evils of the world are racism, sexism and homophobia. I guess they are all just one thing?intolerance of nonconformity. And what is religion but a vehicle for conformity? Your website rocks!
Wendy Ip, Manhattan
Yeah, It's Called Traverse City
Mike Signorile: I wonder if there is a special corner of hell for the truly stupid, because that's where you're headed, pal. You couldn't have gotten it more wrong if you tried. Too bad.
Daryl St. Arno, Traverse City, MI
O'Hair Ye!
Thank you for swimming against the current media tide ("no atheists in foxholes," "spiritual renewal across America," etc.) and publishing Mr. Signorile's piece "The Real American Taliban." Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether its origin is Islam, Judaism or Christianity. Theocracy is theocracy, whether it's Mullah Omar in Afghanistan or John "You Certainly Can Legislate Morality" Ashcroft here at home. The U.S. version differs from the Afghan version in degree but not in principle. I agree with Signorile's parallel and appreciate his willingness to call a spade a spade. Two groups who are trying to protect those of us who are not theocracy-minded are the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They deserve a mention.
Leslie Allison, College Park, MD
Buggin' Out
You suck for dropping "Bee/Shutterbug Follies"! Jason Little = a genius.
Lev Grossman, Brooklyn
Little Support
I am writing concerning Jason Little's comic strip, "Bee/Shutterbug Follies," which you have recently dropped. Please bring him back?his strip is beautiful!
Sara Varon, Brooklyn
Torture Prose
Torture is evil and wrong. Taki's article, "Torture Time," ("Top Drawer," 1/9) argues that sometimes torture is not evil and wrong. Sometimes torture is necessary to provide for the common good.
Perhaps in some very hypothetical scenario, a case might be made for torture. For example, you know a horrible bomb will soon go off, and kill and maim some people. You know that someone in custody can tell you about the bomb and allow you to stop it. And you know the only way you get this information is to torture your prisoner. Then it would seem that torture is justified.
But I would be extremely, extremely skeptical of any such scenario. How do you know there is a bomb? How do you know the suspect knows about it? How do you know that torture will get the information? How do you know that some other method will not work better than torture? How do you know that torture will not produce disinformation from the suspect?
And then there is the kicker: How do you authorize torture in some special, almost mythical scenarios, and at the same time provide safeguards that the interrogators do not abuse their authority to torture?
Taki appears not to be very interested in any of these questions. He seems to feel that these terrorist guys have it coming to them anyway, so don't worry too much about it. I strongly disagree: torture on the grounds that someone deserves it is totally unjustified and morally disgusting. If Taki really believes something like this, then he is not much better than those persons who sympathize with the terror attacks.
Matthew Goggins, Bronx
Taki's Sensibilities
Oh, how I agree with Taki! How about drenching them with pig blood, for starters? He makes a whole lot of sense to me.
Jean Van Etten, Port St. Lucie, Fl
Oh Yes, We're Equal-Opportunity Slurrers
I'm always happy to pick up a copy of New York Press to share my time on the F train, as I did on Jan. 9. I must say, however, I find your viewpoints Manhattan-centric. There's not one restaurant review in Queens, for instance...on second thought, let's keep it that way. On perusing your restaurant reviews, and this detail may have been in place for a while, I noted the use of a slur in an otherwise positive review of Mario Batali's restaurant, Babbo. Need I point out to you that this is highly offensive? Do you use racist terms in reference to other ethnic groups? Perhaps in the privacy of your home and with your kin? Why is it okay for this, or any slur, to appear in print? Shame on you for your ignorance.
Jim Pignetti, Manhattan
And Many Happy Returns
In his celebration of 2001, Matt Zoller Seitz ("Film," 1/9)?the literate half of your movie-reviewing team?focuses on "Kubrick's metaphors." They turn out to be, for Seitz, "round shapes" like eyes and planets vs. "machine-tooled rectangles and squares" (huh?). Another, more obvious metaphor he discusses, and one that makes more sense to me, is that this story of man's development as a species is told as "a series of voyages." Let me add to this list what I've always thought of as the film's controlling metaphor: birthdays.
There are at least four of them. The first section of the movie, and the one I've watched again and again with the most pleasure, depicts the birthday of the human race as the alien black slab plants a new idea?the first tool (which just happens to be a lethal weapon)?into the brain of an ape, essentially turning the creature into Man the Tool-User.
Jump forward a few million years, in one of the medium's most famous cuts, and what was a bone is now a spaceship; however, the movie suggests that it's only a more sophisticated version of the earlier tool. In this section of the story, as Seitz reminds us, the hero, Heywood Floyd, makes a videophone call to his little daughter back on Earth "and tells her that Daddy can't come to her party because he's traveling." What Seitz neglects to mention is that it's her birthday party.
The next, and longest, section of the movie, the Jupiter mission, carries on the theme when one of the two astronauts, Frank Poole, gets a videophone message from his parents. They're sitting at a table with his birthday cake, and they proceed to sing him a rather strained "Happy Birthday." The final section, of course, features another birthday courtesy another black slab?the birthday of a brainier and presumably more peaceable species representing the next step in our development.
Ted Klein, Manhattan
Shoulda Took a Mulligan
I read and agree with George Szamuely's article "Nothing Urgent" ("Taki's Top Drawer," 1/9) and I was wondering if anyone looked into how long it took to scramble the fighter jets and intercept Payne Stewart's airplane several years ago. It would be interesting to compare the two because, as I recall, they got to his plane very early into its flight.
Andrew Logan, Harrisburg, PA
High-Speed Chastise
George Szamuely: I was amused by your confident assertion that F-16s can intercept aircraft at 1500 mph, more than twice the speed of sound ("Taki's Top Drawer," 1/9). As a former navigator/F-4E weapon systems officer (WSO) in the Air Force, I can tell you that such is not the case. While it may be true that an F-16 has a top speed of Mach 2+, it can only fly that fast for a very limited time, a few minutes at most. You must use afterburner to fly supersonic and afterburner consumes four times the fuel of normal flight. If you flew in afterburner from Otis AFB you'd likely run out of gas before you arrived over NYC.
Also, half an hour to fly to a point 150 miles from your base of departure is a reasonable time. You are not going to be rolling down the runway at Mach 2+, nor will you be climbing to altitude at that speed. It takes time to accelerate. Generally, it takes about 20 minutes to climb to altitude, at which point your airfield is still in sight on the horizon. That 300 mph is not the speed the F-16s were flying the entire time but rather the average speed from the release of wheel brakes to cruising speed at altitude, i.e., 0 mph to 600 mph.
Generally, you would never intercept an aircraft at supersonic speed because you would overshoot your target. Most intercepts are done at about 500 to 600 knots. Most air combat in jets occurs at 350 to 550 knots. Intercepting another aircraft at Mach 2+ is something like trying to turn off on a freeway ramp going 150 mph. It would be nuts to try that.
Something else for you to think about: the Air Force doesn't have alert bases full of fighter aircraft positioned to intercept every civilian airliner going anywhere, anytime. You would need to build a second and much bigger air force just to handle such a job. Generally, fighters are on alert at a handful of bases around the perimeter of the United States to counter known threats. For example, there are alert birds in Homestead AFB near Miami to handle intruders from Cuba. The alert birds at Otis AFB are there to cover the periodic Russian intelligence flights that cruise the East Coast. There are no fighters standing alert near New York City because there are no enemy air bases in New York.
This profoundly flawed column appears to be an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Obviously, your intent was to slander the military. My recommendation is that you stick to topics you know.
Steve Gregg, Austin, TX
Good Grief
John Strausbaugh: The Grief Industry may well be the civilian equivalent of Mariah Carey heading off to a war zone to entertain our troops ("Publishing," 1/2), but unlike the songstress, and so many of her peers, I think it's fair to say that these G.I.'s have a purpose. Or at least we should be able to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. You, however, dismiss this possibility out of hand in "Don't Cry for Us, Oklahomans."
Comparing the atrocities in Oklahoma and in New York City is as relevant as comparing the two cities themselves. I understand this, yet the author fails to acknowledge that this here is a melting pot. Every nationality is represented in New York, a fact that was proved time and time again during the city's very public grieving process when we held our dignified silences in front of rows upon rows of international flags. In our acceptance and often celebration of our multiracial environment we, in turn, have to allow all and any responses to a tragedy their time and place. I must agree, though, that these people are vultures of the worst kind, and pre-"a certain morning in September" many New Yorkers, myself included, would have run them out of town with all the protective pride we willingly endorse on a day-to-day basis when we feel threatened by our fellow North Americans. Coming from another country, a different continent? Sure, bring your culture, your history, your personal idiosyncrasies that have been handed down to you generation after generation. This is the place to show them off. But any of you muthafuckas from inside our landmass (and that includes you, Canada), don't even think about telling us how to behave.
My problem with Mr. Strausbaugh's piece is that it represents a New York City that isn't really viable anymore. People, no matter how they long for the past, don't buy into that anymore. The streets are safer, our world feels nicer. We've followed the rest of the nation's lead in appointing a glorified CEO to run the show. Sure, it may pass, but as of right now we ain't as individual as we wanna be anymore. Whether or not we're joined at the hip with Oklahomans, as was suggested by the do-gooders, we have sided with our fellow citizens and, perhaps more to the point, we've prided ourselves on this newfound ability to do so, without feeling like we've compromised our identity.
A friend of mine, who works for Morgan Stanley, and who was initially questioning her allegiance to the city, commented last night that "things seem to have returned to normal." I agree and I'm sure Strausbaugh does too, but surely this is less of a testimony to the resolve of New York City and more that, not only have we had our reputation tested in front of the world, but that the world has had our backs throughout. How often do you hear of bombs in London? We all know it goes on, that there is a problem with terrorism in Britain, but were we told that there were at least two bomb attacks on the British soil in the immediate wake of the incidents here? There's no point, it hasn't got the political weight or consequence of, say, an attack in Israel (a subject well-documented in your paper in recent months). We are recovering with our heads held high not because we're the tough guys that the world perceives us to be but because everyone turned up to show us how to recover. It may be true that we don't want the do-gooders, but it's equally true that we don't want to want the do-gooders, and, in turn, that however much it goes against our universally unique arrogance and disdain, we may in fact need them.
What happened in Oklahoma was astonishing because it was carried out by one of our own; this wasn't a new experience for us or for the rest of the free world. It reinforced a fear that will always exist because, as we all know, you please all the people all the time. What happened that morning in September was brand new, in concept, daring and reason.
How many of us went to Oklahoma to offer support, physical, mental, spiritual? Did they want us to help out? I doubt any but a handful could say. At least, Mr. Strausbaugh, our rural kin had the decency and the wherewithal to come up here and find out. To send them back with a sneer and a column of abuse is both out of date and out of touch with the feelings of the very people your text was designed to represent.
Name Withheld, Manhattan
John Strausbaugh replies: Let's get one small point right. I wasn't "sneering" at Oklahomans, but at the maudlin image of them as professional, peripatetic mourners painted by a self-serving, self-appointed expert-in-grief writing for The New York Times. His article declared that Oklahomans know how to grieve in the approved manner, and New Yorkers don't: to which I still say, "Fuck off, you mawkish twit."
Gore in '04?
Once again, MUGGER, you've demonstrated impressive mental gymnastics?this time straining to avoid Thomas Friedman's basic point: how vital it is for us to reduce our dependency on foreign oil ("e-MUGGER," 1/2). Zeesh, if there was ever an issue the left and the right could unite on, this would be it. Do you really disagree, for example, with Friedman's oft-repeated warning that when oil supplies are tight it particularly empowers Saddam Hussein? I suspect you disagree with Friedman's suggestions in that op-ed piece (such as raising CAFE requirements), but that's not an excuse for ducking them. And reread his column?he didn't say we should revive Kyoto, he said that Bush's reducing our energy consumption would be an eloquent response to environmentalist critics for his refusal to sign Kyoto. You attack Friedman for writing "as if the war was over" and ignoring Saddam Hussein?I could just as easily attack you for writing as if the Secretary of State were Paul Wolfowitz and not Colin Powell.
Next, as to Al Gore's alleged "let's all get along" foreign policy. This is disingenuous given that Gore was one of the handful of Democratic senators who supported the Persian Gulf War and was widely reported to be an interventionist hawk within the Clinton administration. There's no reason to simply assume he would have responded so differently from Dubya. Indeed, even Clinton had William Cohen as his secretary of defense?among all the well-deserved praise given to Donald Rumsfeld, I've yet to hear a single conservative say, "Thank God Bill Cohen isn't running this war!"
Name Withheld, via e-mail
Russ Smith replies: Al Gore's U.S. Senate vote in favor of the Gulf War wasn't based on ideology, but rather a deal with Republicans that allowed him a headline-grabbing speech. That's one of the reasons Gore has never been a favorite in insider Democratic circles. As for Bill Cohen, I don't think his record as Clinton's defense secretary will rate even four paragraphs in histories of foreign policies of the 90s.
Georgia Lovin'
MUGGER: You seem to be getting back on your feet, metaphorically speaking, with regards to the column. I have sensed a preoccupation with other things than your newspaper in recent times. When you write about Sept. 11 in your neighborhood it has been gripping and evocative. I hope that you continue to write about that day in Lower Manhattan. People's attention spans are much too short. I hope that you and your neighbors are able to heal and able to grieve, and that each day brings something new to be happy about in the aftermath. Let me know if you are headed to Atlanta for any reason this year. I'd love to buy you a cold one and chat a bit.
Rob Maynard, Marietta, GA
Excellent Question
MUGGER: Mayor Bloomberg made the correct call to say no in the use of public funding for new Major League Baseball stadiums (1/9). In ancient Rome, government attempted to curry favor with the masses by offering free bread and circuses. Today, we have sports pork.
How sad that New York City taxpayers continue to be asked to pay for new stadiums. Public dollars on the city, state and federal levels are being used as corporate welfare to subsidize a private-sector business. The only real beneficiaries of these expenditures are team owners and their multimillion-dollar players. It is impossible to judge the amount of new economic activities that these so-called public benefits will generate.
Between selling the stadium name, season sky boxes and reserve seating, cable, television and radio revenues, concession refreshment and souvenir sales along with rental income for other sports, rock concerts and other commercial events, it is hard to believe that those who want one can't finance new stadiums on their own.
Given the current municipal fiscal crises along with a downturn in economic revenues and projected deficits of several billion dollars, there are more important city services to invest in. Professional sports is not an essential service and shouldn't qualify for government subsidy. Increasingly scarce taxpayer funds would be better spent elsewhere. Why shouldn't the current team owners float their own bonds or issue stock to finance new stadiums?
Larry Penner, Great Neck, NY
Contrary to a rather popular Hollywood myth, Disney didn't use true rotoscoping for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. A number of live action sequences were filmed (with such as Marge Champion portraying Snow White), but they were only used for reference purposes. In some sequences the footage was traced out to study portions of the movement, the concern being to make the animation of humans appear realistic. Nonetheless, the animators animated independently in the traditional "freehand" fashion.
The Fleischer studio remained the primary user of rotoscoping in animated cartoons, and it appears prominently in the "Out of the Inkwell" series, Betty Boop cartoons and "Gulliver's Travels."
Edward Summer, Manhattan
Not in the Stars
If you need more space in the back of the rag, how about losing that stupid astrology column? I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you limit the space devoted to sleazy sex ads, but how about giving us an entertainment break? Real newspapers have something called a "news hole," usually determined by the amount of advertising?a lot of ads calls for a corresponding amount of editorial material. This gives the readership a reason for opening the publication, thereby being exposed to the advertising. This is the customary rationale behind publishing, innit? I won't wade through all that muck in the back of the rag just to get to a fake horoscope. (This also held true for the "real" horoscope you used to run.) How much can it possibly cost you to carry a couple of quarter-page syndicated features? No matter how much money you save, it will probably not equal what you will lose from a dearth of entertainment resulting in a drop in circulation. Presumably, that's still the basis for ad rates. I've kissed "The Straight Dope" goodbye, but I hope the "Bee" hiatus is only temporary, as it's a beautiful strip with an interesting, continuing storyline. In my opinion, this issue stopped at "Maakies." The front is currently adequate, although it will be interesting to see what, if anything, will be replacing Caldwell's column. Still, it would be nice if there were something in the back to justify all that newsprint.
Jim Wilson, Manhattan
Art & Culture
Christian Viveros-Fauné: When Norman Rockwell died in 1978, one of my teachers at Stuyvesant High School was shocked that I was saddened by his passing ("Art," 12/19). He couldn't reconcile my cynical demeanor with my appreciation of what seemed, to him, to be the epitome of saccharine sentimentality. Of course, I was also an aspiring artist, and to me Rockwell was simply the finest draftsman of the 20th century. At a time when modern art had become a series of scams and cons, Rockwell was producing, on a difficult and demanding schedule, superbly rendered images in the service of patrons who were less morally suspect than the Medicis, who subsidized the greatest Renaissance artists. In fact, had Rockwell lived three centuries earlier, I have no doubt that he would have been hailed as a great master. At a time when American illustrators were the finest artists in the world, Norman Rockwell was the best of them, and the Guggenheim show, far from being a "transparently opportunistic fiasco," is a tribute to a great illustrator and painter. Unlike the cubists, abstract expressionists, modernists, postmodernists, post-postmodernists and whatever-else-comes-next who sought to shock their complacent audiences, Rockwell sought to reassure an audience that was enduring the privations of two world wars, the Great Depression and the Cold War. Americans didn't need to be shocked by art. The real world was shocking enough.
Viveros-Fauné's animus seems to have less to do with Rockwell's paintings than with the America that he painted. He doesn't just hate Rockwell, he hates the "shabby-Caucasian corner of New York" that produced him and the "postwar Americans [who wanted] a creative vision just shallow and jug-stupid enough to meet the age's groundswell of unchecked commercialism on its own terms." This is not a happy reviewer. Of course, Rockwell has always been a kind of litmus test. He infuriates those who hate America and the iconography of what Viveros-Fauné calls "the dangerously triumphalist ideology of American exceptionalism," i.e., the confidence and pride of a nation that had gone from a colonial backwater to the savior of global democracy in the space of a paltry couple of centuries. Christian Viveros-Fauné isn't pissed off at Norman Rockwell, he's pissed off at Norman Rockwell's America.
By denigrating Rockwell as "an artist of meager imagination and limited talent" Viveros-Fauné is letting ideology cloud his vision. It's really sad that the "highbrow" intellectual critic still can't appreciate a great illustrator and painter without letting his politics blind him to the beauty of one man's art.
Mike Harris, Los Angeles
9/11 Profits
The city can't have it both ways. Giuliani turned the WTC disaster site into a shameless tourist attraction and publicity launch pad for himself within hours of the 9/11 attack. He led countless groups of celebrities, sports figures and elected officials on tours of the site who were looking for useful photo-ops intended to promote their careers. None of these people had any legitimate need or reason to be there. He wore the NYPD and FDNY logos in hundreds of media appearances so as to falsely identify himself with real heroes whose salaries he kept at absurdly low levels and whose health and safety he failed to protect. Right before leaving office he had a giant tourist viewing platform built at the site?after previously restricting it to real New Yorkers and to the media. The city is now distributing tickets to see the ruins from a kiosk at the South Street Seaport?a location where almost everyone is a tourist?as if the WTC disaster was a Broadway show. The businesses in the area that are part of the Downtown Alliance BID are advertising tourist discounts and even a happy hour linked to the disaster. Inevitably in our supposedly free market system, vendors show up to try to make some money. How is what they are doing any more shameful than what Giuliani and the business groups have been doing?
Robert Lederman, Brooklyn
Thanks for Caring
MUGGER: Bloomberg will not do that, as this is his first foray into politics (1/9). He will of course become a politician, but one without a clue of what is actually happening down on the street. Why? He has built an empire most admirable, but doing so does not make him in touch with common America. Rudy is gone, Bloomberg is in, but I do not feel he has a clue as to what is needed to lead NYC out of this morass. He is rich, even in comparison to most New Yorkers, who are considered to be well-off. What does he have in common with these folks? I say, nothing! That will be the difference?he cannot communicate with the general populace. Also, because he has made his wealth, he will now squander away the wealth of NYC. We can all help those who need help; we cannot, however, help those who do not want to help themselves.
Frank Hodgson, Raleigh, NC
Don't Quota Me
I just shook my head as I endured Phil Hall's "Where're The Firema'ms" letter last week ("The Mail," 1/9). He asserts that both the NYPD and FDNY are way off in resembling the city's demographics. My answer to that is, so what? If, after testing, interviewing and passing the academy, it so happens that the best qualified are predominately white males, then so be it. If I'm trapped in a burning building, I want firemen who are qualified to try to help get me out. If a situation requires a policeman to fire his weapon to save a life?perhaps even his own?then I expect it to be a cop who is a good shot. And Rudy Giuliani had nothing to do with "white male's exclusive clubs" that do not even e