MUGGER Sucks! MUGGER Rules!; Truscott and the Scouts; Readers Corroborate: Mark Crispin Miller Really Is An Asshole; More...

I suppose you don't have to be told that a newspaper should stand on its own, and not have to be supplemented by its website. But in the spirit of the exciting new frontier of the Internet, your editors decide to post articles and letters on the Internet that are unavailable on the printed page (specifically "The Mail"). Call me old-fashioned, but you're just plain lame.

It is no surprise that none of the other letters addressing this concern make it into your print version.

I am aware of the irony of sending you an e-mail expressing these views.

William Manning, Manhattan

The editors reply: We get lots of mail?more than we could run in the print edition. We also run more mail than any other weekly publication he could name. We put as much as we can fit into the print edition, and run the rest on-line. Even the stupid ones.

 

Rocky Mountain Low

In my last letter, I mistakenly referred to your publication as New York Free Press. I apologize sincerely and humbly for this potentially offensive error, one that might imply that yours is a leftist publication (which it most certainly is not). I can only beg your forgiveness, and offer the following as an excuse:

You see, sirs, while I was born and raised in New York City, I have (until recently, and for reasons too complicated to get into) lived in Boulder, CO, where the streets are filled with Volkswagen bugs bearing "Free Tibet" bumperstickers and the selling or consumption of nonorganic food is punishable by death. (This gruesome sentence is usually carried out in a public square, with the victim being boiled in a vat of patchouli oil?quite an horrific sight.) I believe my longterm exposure to this environment tainted my judgment, resulting in the error mentioned above.

Again, deepest apologies for my most offensive gaffe.

Joshua Samuel Brown, via Internet

And It Stoned Me

May I guess that neither John Strausbaugh ("Editorial," 10/18) nor anyone at "Taki's Top Drawer" has ever had a rock (and by "rock" I mean big Middle East riot-type rocks) thrown at them?

Allow me to enlighten them, and your readers, with what should be an obvious point. Rocks can, and frequently do, kill and injure. An ancient form of capital punishment wasn't called "stoning" for nothing. In addition, Darwin would seem to indicate that anyone who'd throw a rock at someone with a gun is better off not contributing to the gene pool.

I do have to love Strausbaugh's rationalization that as Israel is more powerful (than a billion Muslims, I guess), it must be in the wrong. The implications of that are lovely. I guess armed police departments the world over are always in the wrong when they pursue common criminals. I guess Weimar Germany was wrong when it was threatened by Brownshirts in the 1920s. Need I go on?

Oh, and one last thing. The Palestinians do have guns. Guess who they got them from?

Finally, to Lucian K. Truscott IV ("Opinion," 10/18): In your righteous indignation, you've missed the point entirely. The Supreme Court never said it's okay for the Boy Scouts to discriminate. That's none of their business. They simply ruled that government has no place telling private organizations what they can and can't do. If you must attack someone, attack the Boy Scouts themselves (I imagine they'll survive). The Court, on the other hand, did the right thing for once, upholding a basic freedom found in that old document, the Constitution. You should read through it one day. It'll prove really edifying.

Nathan Lamm, Queens

Instruments of Generation

George Tabb: You forgot to ask ("Music," 10/18) whether the L.E.S. Stitches' band members are still exposing themselves onstage (not that Mick Stitch has anything to brag about). You know how that is?when your material isn't quite up to par, you have to do something to generate interest.

Joseph Mazza, Manhattan

Unsafe at Any Speed

Hey MUGGER! So, the Red Sox are up for sale (10/11), and you think that's a reason to be melancholy? I am delighted. I realized, more than 20 years ago, that they wouldn't win a Series until there was no one named Yawkey even related to the team. I give them 10 years after the sale to make it.

Now, as to John Strausbaugh ("Editorial," 10/11): Helmet laws make sense on the face of it? Are you kidding? Have you ever ridden a bike? What about the itching that helmets cause in the heat? It's a real distraction. How about the loss of visibility, or being able to hear the traffic around you? And what about freedom of choice? I thought I lived in a free country! Why don't we just ban bikes altogether? And while we're at it, since more than 42,000 people die in traffic accidents annually, let's ban cars, too!

Or how about this. Let's make people in cars wear helmets. Do you know how many lives that would save? Do you realize how many people die of head injuries in traffic accidents? Are you aware that the reason rearview mirrors are glued to the windshield instead of being screwed to the headliner is to reduce head injuries? A helmet would have solved that problem quite nicely.

For all of those who are laughing at this point, remember: we bikers are not looking to spread our brains across the road. I wore a full-face helmet back when I was young and in the habit of using the highway as my own personal racetrack. Riders without helmets are generally more careful than drivers without. Don't believe me? Just look at how much riskier car drivers are now that you all have airbags. There are those who don't fear accidents or injury, as they believe the airbag will save them.

Ken Marinelli, Beverly, MA

John Strausbaugh replies: An old BMW R50 was my sole means of transportation for years. I rode it everywhere, in all types of weather, until the afternoon I smacked into the rear deck of an automobile that abruptly and illegally stopped on the highway. I was not riding recklessly that day, but I was glad to be wearing my helmet and leathers. But more to the point, which Marinelli clearly missed?maybe he was wearing a helmet while reading it?I was not arguing for helmet laws. In fact, I said that as an attempt to prevent dumbass behavior, such legislation has a funny way of failing.

 

Trending Toward Bush

MUGGER: Yet another masterpiece!

However, please don't call the election yet. Granted, current trends are toward George W. Bush, but there are still two weeks to go and anything can happen.

I would expect to see the nameless and shameless one begin appearing in California and Florida, now that both states are in play. The "kill the old and poor" rhetoric will begin before I have a chance to finish this letter. See? There they go already!

Bush will succeed as president because of two things. First, he has superior advisers and a willingness to use them. Bush understands that he doesn't know everything, and that's actually a plus. Second, he's not a detail man. He's a "vision person," as the president should be. As president, Al Gore would get bogged down in details. Details are what advisers and department heads are for.

Dwight Paul, Urbana, OH

Likes Dick, Loves God

I like Cheney, but isn't he a member of the same groups that are trying to run the country and the world? (Groups like Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, Skull & Bones, the Bohemians, the Grand Lodge Masons, etc.?)

I'm schizophrenic, meaning I have delusions of grandeur and persecution. The persecution has started. I look forward to the grandeur. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm ready, as an elderly citizen, to fight for God and Country. (I'm a vet.) But I wouldn't fight for our government as I see it today. I feel a vote of conscience would be a vote for the worst of two evils. I think I probably won't vote. The Lord is the One who makes and breaks kings and kingdoms; we're in His hands whether we like it or not. The future depends on recognizing Him as Lord of lords and King of kings.

We will get what we deserve. This all bodes ill for the U.S. and the world. Cursed is he who trusts in man.

Harold D. Fisher, via Internet

Blinkin and Nod

MUGGER: In your 10/19 "e-MUGGER" you state that Bush "appear[s] confident and presidential."

Now, I generally love your column, but you can't be serious, can you? What this man appears to be is a deer in the headlights. Listening to Bush attempt to answer a straightforward question is, quite frankly, painful. He is clearly in over his head. Moreover, you can see the terror in his eyes when the subject is anything other than taxes or education. The only words he seems to be able to muster are, "I'll let the people decide." (Meanwhile, he's thinking, "because I sure the fuck don't know what to do about it.")

Last thing: What's up with all of Bush's creepy blinking? A female friend of mine who couldn't care less about politics brought this to my attention. As Bush gave his final statement, he blinked nonstop. I mean, it was freakish.

The man is a shambles. Of course, I don't like Gore either, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Anyway, keep up the good work. I look forward to reading you every week.

C. Dudley, Chicago

Gore on the Ice

Re: The most recent "e-MUGGER" piece.

Like your calls. Too much fun all around. Not that George W. Bush is any paragon of virtue, but Al Gore is insufferable.

The cynic in me keeps recalling another Gore's take on American elections?at least, I remember that it was Gore Vidal who said that Americans had the choice to vote for two branches of the property party.

The political machines and interests behind both these guys are so diverse that it seems impossible that individuals can really get a handle on or grasp the complexity of the process or the issues at stake. Witness poor Gore's attempts to make public policy rationally intelligible to the public.

Cheers from a Canadian onlooker.

Edward Newell, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Raw Doggin' It

Yes, Taki's right ("Top Drawer," 10/11). All those "lefties" give Nixon a very raw deal. Nixon made only a couple of minor mistakes as president: taking more than four years to stretch out his "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam (during which he expanded it to Cambodia) and attempting to undermine the Constitution through his "plumbers" unit and other practitioners of "dirty tricks."

But what intrigued me was Taki's parenthetical aside about Israel, which concludes as follows: "...after 52 years of oppressing the Palestinians, one day?alas, not in my lifetime?the chickens will come home to roost." Is Taki indulging in a genocidal reverie here?

Unlike Taki's rightist counterparts in Israel, who have done all they could over the years to sustain this oppression, and who under Sharon have joined with Arafat to spark the latest bloodshed, it is Israel's left?both moderates like Barak and many to his left by varying degrees?who have tried valiantly to negotiate an end to this sorry state of affairs. Alas, in the face of Arafat's failure to negotiate in good faith at Camp David, and his arming and incitement of a militia called the Tamzim, Israel's peace camp lies in tatters now.

For Taki's information, it is not that "the Israeli army is now using helicopter gunships firing armor-piercing missiles against children throwing stones." As ugly as it looks, these helicopters are firing at snipers and at strong points of the Tamzim and Arafat's paramilitary police, who are shooting at Israeli positions.

Ralph Seliger, Manhattan

Hop on Lindsay

David Lindsay's letter ("The Mail," 10/18) about Taki's take on Nixon after Clinton begs the question. Taki is a seasoned journalist. He followed both scandals. He feels no extraordinary affection for Nixon. Taki is tactfully pointing out the similarity between the two men. Taki's bias is for balanced argument. Do the arithmetic. Nixon used bad judgment. Clinton used bad judgment. Clinton is only human. Nixon was only human. The only difference is, Nixon is history and Clinton is news.

Brian R. Higgins, Manhattan

Our Sharon-a

John Strausbaugh's grotesque characterization in your 10/18 "Editorial" of Ariel Sharon as a Hitlerian war criminal is a profound insult to Jews. Hitler was an historically unique monster who murdered six million Jews and millions of other "undesirables." There are many candidates in the Middle East for such characterization, Hussein and Arafat being prime examples.

Sharon had every right to visit any part of Jerusalem, Israel's capital. That he was escorted by heavy security was the result of his being refused protection by the Palestinian authorities. That he needed protection is amply demonstrated by what happened shortly after: a frenzied mob attack on Israel and its people that, except for the stern measures instituted by the Israeli police and army, could have overrun the country and destroyed the state of Israel.

That this riot was planned is clear to everyone, except your newspaper. Rocks had been gathered and stored for weeks and, soon after, this mob received support from the Palestinian police, who had been armed by Israel. Israel, as would any other democracy threatened with assault and anarchy, took measures to arrest the out-of-control mobs. It quickly became evident that this planned attack on Israel was a typical Arafat ploy: to enact terror if he could not get his way entirely.

No Israeli had ever made concessions such as Barak did. The preponderance of Israelis, living in a popular democracy (the only one in the entire region), were against such enormous concessions without any concessions by the Palestinians. In fact, throughout the so-called peace process, the Palestinian people were fed anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli propaganda, hateful accusations that embittered the gullible mobs who had no other source of information.

The current outbreak was thus a result of this continuous propaganda assault by the Palestinian media and authorities, and a planned revolution aimed at the PLO final solution: the destruction of Israel.

As for Sharon, he is guilty of not threatening Israeli lives when Christian Lebanese assaulted Palestinians in revenge for the prior Palestinian massacre of Christians. Does this make him a Hitler? Can anyone in democratic Israel, elected and/or appointed by a democratic elected government, be a Hitler? Horrors and shame!

Finally, the media forgot that the original UN resolution establishing an area for a truncated Jewish state also provided for a large proportion of the region as a Palestinian state. The PLO rejected this offer and engaged in a terrorist war against Israeli citizens and Jews, the world over. And contiguous Arab countries attacked Israel three times in order to destroy it and throw the Jews into the sea. This was their declared objective, outlined in the PLO covenant.

Only an abysmally ignorant editor or one infected with anti-Semitic hatred could have written such a slur on the Jewish people.

Arthur Ginsberg, Manhattan

John Strausbaugh replies: It's not clear which editorial Ginsberg thinks he read, but it wasn't the one I wrote: I never mentioned Sharon, or Hitler, or accused anyone of being a war criminal. At best it could be inferred that I was accusing Barak, Arafat and Clinton of "criminally" poor leadership and judgment.

 

Offensive Yoke

MUGGER: I love your column and eagerly read it. I just wanted to point out that Al Gore's third debate performance was even more appalling than you noted in your most recent column. Not only did Alien Al invoke Gov. Carnahan on the affirmative action question, but at the end of his opening statement, when he expressed sympathy for his supposed close friend, he said that the Governor had overseen a state that was ranked in the top five for child healthcare?an obvious attempt to yoke his "sincere" condolences with his earlier digs at Gov. Bush.

Thus Gore proved once again that he is unable to say or do a single thing without coldly calculating the effects it will have on his unrelenting ambitions. I think the Vice President is more untrustworthy and more dangerous to our society than Bill Clinton ever was, and look forward to the sunny Sunday morning when I can turn on my tv without seeing him or one of his wretched minions.

Peter Rienzi, via Internet

Soup Bones

Lucian K. Truscott IV: The Supreme Court split decision on the Boy Scouts' policy of banning gay troop leaders is not a question of a "ringing endorsement" of the Scouts ("Opinion", 10/18). It's a decision on a point of law. It's not the same as scoring 56 percent on a test.

You talked a lot about segregated Boy Scout troops in the 50s, insinuating that BSA is a racist organization. But lots of things were segregated in those days. So what? You also seem to think that banning gay troop leaders is akin to discriminating on the basis of race or religion, which is not true. It is absolutely not "patently bigoted"?there is a perfectly valid reason for it, and you know it.

They can always fall back on the argument that, being a private organization, they can admit or exclude anyone they want. That's a good argument. Otherwise, anybody could force his way into any private organization and take it over. But, in addition, the BSA is probably not too comfortable with the idea of letting a gay adult lead a bunch of little kids out into the woods, and that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I wouldn't go for male gym teachers in a girls' locker room either.

A word of advice: don't make any more snide remarks about the "geniuses" on the Supreme Court. You have a long way to go before your arguments reach the level of theirs.

Joe Rodrigue, New Haven