Readers on MUGGER, Slivka, Sullivan, Pollack, White; Save the Children (from New York Press); Where's Spike? Where's Ruby?; LeRoy's "Pillow Lips"; Still Trashing Tabb; Cockburn and the Weather
Correction: The artist's credit was omitted from the map of advertisers in last week's Spring Menu Guide. The illustration is by Jane Sanders. New York Press regrets the omission.
I am so glad that you are now listing Michael Cohen as publisher on your masthead. I was beginning to worry that you were not being properly monitored and looked after.
John Haynes, Manhattan
Lucky Week
Why don't we see more Spike Vrusho? I loved his piece on the Rangers back in January.
Name Withheld, via Internet
No Pain, No Attention
After you dropped one of the best columns you ever had?"The Whipping Post"?I had often wondered what Mistress Ruby was up to. I knew she had the talent for observations about the complex relationships of sex, power and money, and insight into how men and women form bonds.
So she has a book out now?and how come I had to hear about it from someone else? New York Press should be proud of her! I think you took a chance with a new talented writer and she really did some great work. Bring her back? Or at least give us an update?
Bruce Edwards, Manhattan
The editors reply: We didn't drop the column, Bruce, Ruby stopped writing it. We noted the publication of her book some weeks ago. Where were you? Don't answer that.
Jeremy Will Be Surprised
It's funny. I was going to write a nasty letter about J.T. Leroy's Van Sant/Pitt article ("Pillow Lips: My Dinner with Gus Van Sant & Mike Pitt," 3/21). I was going to use words like "sycophantic" and "obsequious" and, most importantly, "cock-sucking." Also, I was gonna rag on the self-references that bind the piece together. Then, when I realized that the writer was a woman, I didn't care anymore. Even though the allegations were the same, it didn't seem to matter.
I don't know what that means (perhaps a homophobic reaction to old man Van Sant's "photography"?), but good luck with "wild and crazy" Mike Pitt. Just remember to bring your wallet the next time you see him.
Akshay Desai, Manhattan
No Lip
To the editor: J. T. LeRoy's "Pillow Lips" was a real lapse. Its praise of loutish behavior was bad. But even worse was the gushy and fawning tone of the piece, which was better suited to a Baba Wawa interview or the new New York Times Magazine. As I'm sure you realize, that's not good company!
J. Shields, via Internet
Whip Smart
Alexander Cockburn's juxtaposition ("Wild Justice," 3/21) of Thomas Jefferson's brandishing a whip over his reluctant slaves and the state militia's breaking the textile workers' bodies as well as their strike is very instructive. This prehistory of globalization suggests that there will be no end to class conflict until the dispossessed of the world are finally treated as humans instead of as work animals.
Patrick D. Hazard, Philadelphia
Worthy Kaz
Bring back Kaz!
We miss him!
It's been sad to watch your comics selection dwindle, you've had so many great strips over the years, and I meant to write sooner to encourage you to run more. I pick up your paper for the comics. Please, bring back Kaz! (And don't get rid of Tony Millionaire!)
R. Sikoryak, Manhattan
Must Teabag Junior
To whom it may concern: My husband picked up New York Press the other day and brought it home for me to read. I am so glad my children did not pick it up to read, since your taste in news in your paper stinks. You should have a label on this paper saying "Not suitable for ages 13 and under." I am talking about your section "The Mail." I suggest you do something about this filth.
Name Withheld, Maxatawny, PA
So Is He!
Re: Andrey Slivka's 3/14 "Pageant Girls: Making Miss Five Boroughs": Absolutely delightful!
Denise Perez, Manhattan
Zone Diet
Andrey Slivka impresses me more and more. His recent online "Billboard" piece about new American architecture (the suburbs), phony American individualism (zoning laws), high school bullying (the children, the suburbs) and January article ("Dirty Jubilee: Warring Sects Assemble for the Bush Coronation," 1/31) on the Bush inauguration (which made me well up?seriously) all speak to an intelligence seriously grappling with the world around him. So I just want to say thank you. It's rare to find someone who feels his morality as keenly as Slivka seems to, and has the ability to express it in such powerful, personal terms, even to the point of submitting his body to his universalism (his food writing). I do miss his media roundups in the print version of New York Press, but I suppose the online "Billboard" makes up for any loss there. Um. Also liked the evangelical piece ("Southern Cross: Testimony from the Mississippi Baptist Convention," 12/6)?nice flights of fancy?although I didn't necessarily agree with the point on the language of preachers. (I think the Danielson Family may be more to the point. Or this track on the new Wu-Tang: "I Can't Go to Sleep." Or Slivka's own writing.)
Anyway thanks again, and also thanks to John Strausbaugh, Matt Zoller Seitz and Russ Smith (though he seems to have become a little lazy now that his man Bush is having his moment in the sun). Ite, then.
Y'all be cool.
Jerome Nadler, Manhattan
Hot Little Philly
I just read Neal Pollack's story about Philadelphia ("New York City," 2/28). There are dozens of world capitals that offer urban life, and horror. I will suggest three:
1. Conakry, Guinea.
2. Dakar, Senegal.
3. Cotonou, Benin. (Okay, it's not the capital. But it should be.)
It seems odd that you would bemoan impurity in urban society when you've only allowed yourself the experience of certain neighborhoods in two second-tier American cities. Even in New York, a city full of the sorts of art students and hipsters who seem to ruin things for you, you could find plenty of whatever you profess to be looking for in the South Bronx or numerous parts of Brooklyn. Or come to Boston and buy a place in Roxbury. (It might be that your jones for urban rawness combined with proximity to art-house cinema might be an insurmountable barrier to your happiness.)
But, man, I'd say you should go to West Africa. I used to live there, and let me tell you: for authenticity it can't be beat. Stay away from where the white people hang out (this is probably also good advice for how to have fun in America), and you'll never feel disappointed.
Josh Johnson, Boston
Casting Bawl
Taki's column "Dirty Movie" ("Top Drawer," 3/21) was the funniest I have read in many moons. I would suggest Alec Baldwin to play Bill Clinton, since he is still smelling up the Hamptons, both now wear a size 50 suit and both have lots of experience with big-haired women. Dennis Rodman could play Jesse Jackson, as both have had several women in bed at once. Spike Lee would make an excellent Mel Reynolds, if we could keep Lee from harping on the fact that Babe Ruth was black. That Abe Lincoln-hater, Steven Spielberg, is a natural for Marc Rich. If Spielberg is unavailable, how about Alan Dershowitz? Gary Busey could be Roger Clinton, since both have many friends in prison and are now telling the jailbird population what they can do for them. Finally, Al Taubman of Sotheby's would love to play Mort Zuckerman.
W. Vernon Trotter, Manhattan
Taki? An Answer?
Taki: I almost threw my back out reading your 3/21 piece on Bill Clinton and his scumbag accomplices. I have not laughed so hard in years. One thing bothered my pedantic mind, however. You stated that Hollywood was about as likely to make a movie about Jesse Jackson and all his shenanigans as you were likely to perform cunnilingus in public upon Hillary Clinton or Andrea Dworkin. I agree. However, I assume that you would not perform cunnilingus on those two odious viragoes even in private. Correct? I want to be sure.
Rick Jones, Prague
Clown College
It's getting pretty hard to believe that you guys are enlightened people who actually have some respect for women. First you publish George Tabb's rot "Why Chicks Can't Rock" ("Music," 3/7) about women, rock and blowjobs, and now you print Ben Domenech's piece on college hijinks ("First Person," 3/14), in which he mentions an assault on a coed without condemning it, thus implying that a vicious attack on a human being is just another harmless prank on par with drinking, streaking and puking.
That woman with the bruised thighs and torn pantyhose was raped. Are you afraid to use that word? Mr. Domenech writes, "She probably won't remember any of tonight, and that's probably a good thing."
Good for whom? Her attacker? I belong to a rape survivor's support group. Unfortunately we remember only too well. As a result of the horrors we have endured, many of us struggle daily with nausea, vomiting, panic attacks, suicidal thoughts, drug abuse, anorexia, terror of men, terror of sex?to name just a few of our inner demons. Some of us have been struggling for more than 30 years. We are only a handful of the more than 17 million women in the U.S. who are rape or attempted-rape survivors.
It is the height of irresponsibility for you to publish this article that encourages sexual assault by perpetuating three dangerous myths: "It's just sex, and sex is harmless"; "If she's drunk, it's not rape"; "She won't remember it anyway."
Both the editors of your paper and Mr. Domenech owe a big banner apology to all your female readers. And guys, please, please get some female viewpoints before you publish any more of this juvenile swill.
Name Withheld, Brooklyn
The editors reply: If Lisa LeeKing, Tama Janowitz, Tanya Richardson, Mimi Kramer, Mary Karam, Petra Dickenson, Eva Neuberg, Daria Vaisman, Melissa de la Cruz, Jill Morley, Carolyn Nash, Maggie Estep, Jessica Willis, Christen Clifford, Lisa Kearns, Jessica Hundley, Yunmi Cho and Ellen Weinstein?among numerous others?don't represent "female viewpoints," then who does? We suspect that a "female viewpoint" is one that "Name Withheld" always agrees with.
The Boys in the Band
MUGGER: So let's get this straight?George W. Bush has now come out against clean water and clean air (revoking forward-looking initiatives that courageous Bill Clinton waited eight years to try to sneak through) and in favor of war, picking a fight with North Korea that even South Korea didn't want. I guess Texas oil misses the Cold War. At least living-space psycho Ian Paisley now feels welcome at the White House.
Hey George Tabb, the reason girls can't rock is that they don't start early enough. When you're a 15-year-old boy, all the 15-year-old girls are flirting with 17-year-old guys and there's no way you're getting any. If you're in a band, however, things might be different. Girls usually start playing in college or after, when guys have already been kicked out of three punk rock bands and drummers are already living off their girlfriends.
Jason Goodrow, Manhattan
Bird in the Bush
I predict Russ Smith will lose his remaining self-respect defending the underhanded-yet-bumbling military puppet, George W. Bush.
Sparrow, Phoenicia, NY
Blood, Beach
C.J. Sullivan: As a current resident of Silver Beach, I feel that you have made a great choice in writing about the community ("Bronx Stroll," 1/10). Whenever I am asked where I live, I always proudly respond "Silver Beach," even though I expect to see a puzzled face in front of my eyes. It is a little frustrating explaining to others what Silver Beach is and what it is like, but I enjoy my country-like, close-nurtured community. It is like living in a snow globe inside of a big city. It seems impossible to be in two places at once, but Silver Beach makes magic happen.
I love my home and community and plan to remain in Silver Beach as I grow and start a family of my own someday. I want my children to be raised in the same nurturing environment that I was raised in, and that my grandmother was raised in. Thank you, once again, for acknowledging the community in which I live.
Katharine Martinucci, Bronx
Bronx Cheer
C.J. Sullivan: I'm a resident of Silver Beach. I just wanted to let you know that you are a total scumbag. Thank you for making the only good neighborhood in the Bronx look like shit. You obviously don't realize the beauty of an all-white, all-friendly group of bungalows. It's a shame that we all can't work for New York Press, because it's easy to be an asshole and abuse people, dick.
Name Withheld, Bronx
What's That Mean?
Armond White needs to throw away his thesaurus and get a life. Quit trying to impress me with big words. "Never lachrymose or truculent, De Niro finds the heart of characters that enables you to read their basic impulses and essential nature even while replicating routine social behavior" ("Film," 3/14). Huh? I thought De Niro had built a career out of quiet truculence. Ever see Cape Fear? Taxi Driver? I agree with the lachrymose part, but I had to look it up first.
How about this: De Niro reveals more while eating a sandwich than most actors do while reciting a monologue. Or even simpler: De Niro finds a character's truth in the most ordinary of actions.
Hope I'm not being too specious.
Jeff Wood, via Internet
Don't Get Him Started on Letts
I have too much respect for New York Press and get too much enjoyment from it to stop reading it because of Taki, whom I now, sadly, conclude is an anti-Semite.
Why has New York Press not officially chimed in on this matter? Or have I missed something? In a British newspaper I found this quote about Taki, in a piece about the Taki-Conrad Black imbroglio: "Taki Theodoracopoulos. Age 63. Outspoken socialite and columnist, writes column for The Spectator. Vocal supporter of General Pinochet and one-time backer of disgraced former Tory MP Neil Hamilton. Once described New York Puerto Ricans as 'fat, squat, ugly, dusky, dirty and unbelievably loud. They turned Manhattan into Palermo faster than you can say spic.'"
I know New York Press is about as anti-p.c. as it gets, but how about the paper coming out of the tall grass and facing this matter of Taki's attitudes, head on?
Wendy A. Goldman, Los Angeles
Carbon Copy
I have always enjoyed Alexander Cockburn's "Wild Justice" columns for their prodigious wit and the way he exposes the flaws in conventional political attitudes and histories. He's a great writer, maybe even the best in New York Press, in my opinion.
I wouldn't insult him with a piece of obsequious fan mail, but I would like to offer some criticism of his 3/14 column, "Global Warming: The Great Delusion." It seemed to me a misdirection of his formidable muckraking energies, somehow. Why attack scientists' prediction of global warming? Just for fun? Does he in fact believe that global warming is a myth, or simply that it can't be proven? If the latter, then does he think that we should still restrict our CO2 emissions on the two-thirds chance that this joint really is heating up because of that stuff? To me this wasn't clear.
Early on, he presents a scientist who suggests that the Earth, throughout its long history, has actually experienced very wide fluctuations in temperature. This latest fluctuation is, in his mind, just a "pimple" on the ass of history. But why does this pimple come now? And are you sure it's just a pimple? It seems to me that these wide fluctuations in temperature occurred over a very vast time scale, so to accuse us of quibbling over a tiny difference in CO2 doesn't seem fair, because we're talking about a very small time scale. I guess he's saying, well, temperature has changed in the past without our being around to cause it, so we're probably not causing it to change now. But to me this argument is like someone saying, "Look, Joe's been sick many times in his life. That doesn't mean that he's sick now just because I poisoned his coffee."
Then Cockburn goes into a long, rambling dissection of some scientific paper, of which the final point seems to be that the scientific models of global warming are subject to error. Well that may be true, but that's due to the complexity of the system, not the "wrongness" of the scientific methods. The vast majority of scientists who study this subject believe that carbon dioxide emissions are causing the globe to warm up. They thought so 10 years ago, and then, lo, we had the hottest decade in recorded history. Yet Cockburn suggests that this may be all some sort of conspiracy to get funding.
The upshot of his article seems to be that people are lunatics for taking this global warming thing seriously, and actually considering the drastic, preposterous step of restricting CO2 emissions. Even George W. is thinking of it! (Don't worry, he decided not to?he's too worried about the energy crisis.) This reminds me of these people who think all the scientists are wrong, and HIV doesn't really cause AIDS. It's an interesting argument, but does that mean we should all run around and have unprotected sex with needle users? Sure, you can't actually prove that there's ever going to be a nuclear war, but does that mean we should just keep pumping out these nuclear warheads?
I don't know. I hope he's right. Summers in New York are hot enough for me already, let me tell you. I think I'm gonna try to rent a cabin up in Canada or something.
Michael George, Brooklyn
Fossil Burn
While I usually find Alexander Cockburn an interesting read, his 3/14 column on global warming was completely off base. I am a climate scientist working at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies here in New York, one of the principal U.S. centers of the apparently "dubious" science of climate modeling.
Right off the bat, the article confuses two very different things, weather and climate. Forecasting the weather is all about predicting when and where it will rain, and how hot it will be tomorrow. Forecasting the climate is all about long-term averages of all the separate weather events. Let me give an example that makes it clear that these things are very different. The result of any one coin toss (the weather) is completely random (it could equally be either heads or tails), but predicting over the long run (the climate) that the results will be almost exactly half heads and half tails is nearly certain.
Whether Siberia is currently going through a tough winter, while not irrelevant (since these temperatures will be included in the estimate of this year's global average), is not central to the point. Nowhere in any model simulation of global warming is the claim that there will never be another cold winter, or that every year will invariably be hotter than the previous. Indeed, some models suggest that the year-to-year fluctuations may even increase.
However, the article later admits that the chances are that the globe really has been warming over the last century. Therefore, the only real argument that remains is attribution?is it related to human activities? (Including, but not restricted to, the emissions of carbon dioxide).
The evidence, from highly sophisticated radiation-transfer models (verifiable in the laboratory and in the field) to measurements of the actual increase in the greenhouse effect from spectrometers on satellites, to more complicated coupled ocean-atmosphere models, suggests that the answer is mostly yes.
The fact that there have been huge climate changes over geological history (but very little over the last 10,000 years) does not mean that climate change is not occurring now, or that any such "pimples" on the scale of millions of years are inconsequential on the scale of tens of millions of years?which is what we actually experience.
Pierre Sprey's statements concerning the need for more research into tropospheric and stratospheric exchange are quite correct, and to that I would add that there's a need for research on the oceanography around Antarctica, the indirect effect of aerosols and a host of other related topics. However, contrary to his beliefs, this research is not in competition with climate modeling. Each type of research feeds off the other, and progress in both is dependent on their interactions. Aerosols are indeed a major uncertainty, as the "Summary for Policymakers" makes quite clear. However, whether they increase rainfall or decrease it is only just starting to be understood. This research involves a lot of atmospheric measurements, and also makes heavy use of global climate modeling in order to put the measurements into a wider context.
Statements like "changes in ocean currents alone could easily account for global warming" are not supported by the evidence. Oceans transport heat from place to place. One area may cool while another area warms. But this actually makes very little impact on the global average temperature (although it is hugely important for European regional climate).
Feedback is, however, the heart of the problem. With a system as complicated as the climate, the pathways of possible feedbacks are almost innumerable. The most important feedbacks do involve water vapor, but far from being a an "odd" omission, it is central to all the estimates and modeling described in the IPCC report. The only way to judge which feedbacks are the most important at any point is to make your best estimate of how each component in the system depends on each of the others, and let it work itself out. In other words, to use a model.
Had Mr. Cockburn managed to get past the "Summary" and actually sink his teeth into the main report (in which some of my and my collaborators' work is cited, although I was not one of the report's authors), he would have found all the apparently "furtive" information he feels was being hidden.
IPCC is not in the business of catastrophism. All the quotes taken from the "Summary" are actually reasonable descriptions of what has happened to climate, and what the vast majority of scientists active in this field actually think. The fact that the globe has not warmed uniformly and that there has not been a wholesale change in every aspect of the Earth's climate is plainly noted. That still does not mean that the global temperature increases and other significant changes that have been observed must be discounted.
And finally, a completely off-the-wall reference to Porton Down seems to have been placed in the text solely to somehow associate climate modeling with biological warfare. Another supposed relationship with the originators of nuclear fission is also uncovered. This is hardly fair comment, and it's completely unsupported by the history of the subject. Its origins lie in pioneering work by numerous university and government scientists like Arakawa at UCLA and Suki Manabe at GFDL in Princeton. It is only in the post-Cold War years that spare computing capacity at places like Los Alamos has been turned to the issue of global warming.
If Mr. Cockburn is genuinely interested in the science of climate change (as opposed to simply attacking a politicized caricature of it), I invite him to come and spend a day at our Institute, talking to some of the scientists working here. I think he would come away with a very different impression from the one he and his friend Pierre Sprey sought to portray in this column.
Gavin Schmidt, Manhattan