George Tabb, Evil Punk; Some Morons Try to Tell Lies About Us

T FACE="New York" SIZE=5> Larry Fishkorn, Manhattan

You're My Punk Rock Churl In George Tabb's 5/10 interview with Colette Burson, the director of Coming Soon, he neglected to mention his talentless band, Furious George. I call them talentless because I had the severe displeasure of seeing Tabb & Co. at New York Press' 5/7 "Rock in New York" event at the Bowery Ballroom. Not only were they insulting with their snide comments and stupid jokes, but their "punk rock" was musically challenged.

I'd also like to mention that George Tabb made a very rude comment about Legs McNeil at the above event. McNeil has more talent in his left little toe than Tabb could ever wish to possess. George Tabb is just a jealous hack whose bloated self-importance makes me ill. Tabb's one of the reasons New York Press will never be as important as the Village Voice.

Jennifer McCoy, Manhattan

P.J. and B.J. Christopher Caldwell is slowly eclipsing P.J. O'Rourke as my favorite political columnist.

Where else does this guy's work appear?

Eric Berlin, Maplewood, NJ

Yeah, He Rides The Canarsie L To Taki the Shmuck: Maybe you like being in a New York City subway station in the summertime, where the temperature reaches 90-plus degrees, with humidity of 90 percent, dressed in a suit and tie ("Taki's Top Drawer," 5/10). However, any normal rational human being prefers less formal attire for traveling to work.

Richard Ry, Queens

Happy Feet In his eloquent insistence in his 5/10 column that style so often defines character, Taki for some reason makes no mention of the sartorial splendor of Adolf Hitler and his minions. The Fuhrer, after all, not only had a way with a uniform but was, as Mel Brooks did not hesitate to remind us, "a heckuva dancer."

George Malko, Manhattan

Stumpfig on Naming Just a note to say how much I enjoy Taki's words of wisdom?and a bit of commentary, if you will allow me.

His 5/10 column about dressing down, and the wonderful quote about the damage caused by liberalism's "relentless scoffing" at ordinary prohibitions and decencies is, in light of the Rudy Giuliani/Donna Hanover scrap, pertinent on another level beyond that of clothes.

While Rudy's affairs of the heart and purported infidelity are not to be admired, his public handling of the situation was gentlemanly and graceful. By contrast, his wife's public accusations were shrewish and graceless. Do we really need to know the details of their on-and-off intimacies? What will this public attack do to their children? There is something truly indecent about making public pronouncements of this sort. This is for lawyers to sort out?I find it offensive to have these private details outed. As is usually the case, things probably should have been handled differently before they reached the boiling point, and Rudy and Donna probably share some blame for the deterioration of their marriage. However, nothing can excuse the public vitriol and intimate revelations expressed by Ms. Hanover.

"Feminists" like Hillary and Donna idolize Eleanor Roosevelt, and admire Jackie Kennedy's stoicism and charm, but do not have any of their grace. Eleanor and Jackie did not stand on the White House steps and have a press conference?this would have been an unthinkable act of bad manners.

I just want Donna and Hillary and the Vagina Monologues and all their faulty and pathetic Ms. magazine tenets to go away. And if I have one word of advice for any man contemplating marriage it is: If she insists on keeping her maiden name, run for the hills.

Sylvia Chanler Stumpfig, Cape Elizabeth, ME

No Stokes Radio Your editorial, "Fools on the Left, a Brute on the Right," in your 5/10 issue was, as usual, laughable. And to paraphrase the Billy Bob Thornton character's line in Sling Blade, "...not funny ha-ha; funny queer."

As I open up your rag, the first feature that hits me is your anti-Mumia screed. I almost thought that "commie" Marc Cooper was at the helm of this idiocy.

For one thing, Abu-Jamal is hardly an NPR commentator. Especially after the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), that bastion of "legitimate" white supremacy, pressured NPR and has been successful in intimidating college campuses around the country from airing his commentary, which indicts the infection of police brutality in Philadelphia and elsewhere.

Thinking people (and not kneejerk reactionaries such as yourselves) know that the police cannot be trusted, especially when they follow the orchestrations of a Rizzo (in the 1970s) or a Giuliani (in the present) to enforce law and order in their respective cities of Filthydelphia and New York. Why the feds are taking so long to investigate the NYPD's myriad abuses is beyond me. Perhaps if Police Commissioner Safir were black, they would have commenced long ago, as they did with Bernard Parks' LAPD.

As is typical of your right-wing rantings, you toss out phrases like "capitalist elites" (Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black) and "killer of workingmen"?as if the police don't exterminate workingmen.

People of your and Marc Cooper's ilk deem it "fashionable" to support Mumia; but I gladly stand in support of anyone speaking out against injustice and wrongdoing. As long as people like you blindly accept the "findings" of kangaroo courts with biased judges, unscrupulous prosecutors and dismissive politicians, I will stand on the side of "fashion."

N. Stokes Davis, North Bergen, NJ

The editors reply: Davis can't process a piece of writing that contains different ideological valences?one that contains more than one idea at once. So he simplifies, ignores and reduces what we wrote in order to speciously pigeonhole us politically, so that he'll find us easier to grasp.

Thus our decrying "capitalist elites" and inveighing against "killers of workingmen" becomes, to Davis, an expression of a "right-wing" position. Sure. We lifted that rhetoric straight from the defunct Forbes campaign. Thus our demanding an end to Giuliani's punitive police-state tactics mysteriously becomes, to this sleazy suburban ideological alchemist, exactly the opposite: blind acceptance of police-state tactics. Thus our criticizing Giuliani's police is, to this asshole, not only somehow a right-wing gesture, but also a "kneejerk" right-wing gesture. Meanwhile, our implication that the police and the courts shouldn't always be trusted becomes?presto!?an insistence that the police and the courts should always be trusted.

Black becomes white and white becomes black, because the rigid pieties of simpletons demand it. Morons tend to think in polarities. If Marc Cooper disagrees with a freedom fighter like Stokes, then Cooper must be a right-winger, correct?

We give Davis permission to keep reading New York Press, in the expectation that, if he puts enough honest effort into it, it will improve him.

Force MD Okay, I think I get it. By dumping on both ends of the political spectrum in your 5/10 editorial, you make yourselves look rational and evenhanded, right? Wrong!

With total illogic, you lump Giuliani's draconian civil asset-forfeiture laws with the popular defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal. You lump a one-man hit squad on civil rights with a movement to defend them.

Having spent hours studying the evidence, I personally am convinced that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent and should be freed. But even those fairminded folks who've read the facts and aren't sure nonetheless do recognize that his rights were violated, that the trial was a railroad job and that the later recanting of several witnesses claiming police coercion casts "reasonable doubt" on the verdict. At minimum, he's entitled to a new trial and a suspension of the cop-killer label from papers like yours.

And speaking of bizarre, how on earth did you come up with the portrait of the left as "Hollywood actors, rock superstars and other capitalist elites"? The movement to support Mumia, like all those today for civil liberties and against racism, is made up of thousands of poor, working and oppressed people, who on a good day are joined by a "celebrity" or two who understand the social justice issues and want to help in any way they can.

Susan Williams, MD, Manhattan

The editors reply: The left's made up not only "of thousands of poor, working and oppressed people," but also, it seems, by women like Susan?or should we say Dr. Williams??who lives, as her return address specifies, on one of Manhattan's most exclusive boulevards.

The doctor's insistence that she's spent "hours" studying the evidence in the Mumia case is a wonderful touch.

Soup Bones John Ellis is right in saying that varying the price of Coke according to the temperature is a stupid idea, but it has no relation to wireless technology ("Convergence," 5/10). Retailers have always had the option of doing it; the only technology they need is a thermometer. I've never seen it done. Why? People will accept a price increase arising from scarcity, but not from a rise in demand. The latter would be considered gouging, and would be resented. It seems very implausible to me that they are seriously considering this idea.

The Internet has certainly changed the marketing picture, but whether it has ushered in the "Age of the Customer" or not depends on your tolerance for hype. Things have always been competitive. That has not changed. What has changed is that certain operations have suddenly become cheap thanks to the Internet, and that has the effect of slashing profit margins. But that's nothing new; it happens every few years.

For example, as you've noted in past columns, it is now technically feasible to aggregate disparate consumers and allow them to bargain as a block with suppliers. Thus suppliers are going to realize a smaller profit per unit, though they actually may sell more units than before. But the same thing happened when big chain stores like Sears started carrying consumer electronics and competing with smaller stores that specialized in that area. The little guys couldn't realize the same economies of scale, and most of them failed. Was that a revolution?

Some of the changes brought about by the Internet look shocking to us only because they're new and unfamiliar. A few years from now all this may look much less revolutionary.

Incidentally, when Jeff Bezos says he spends virtually all his time thinking about his customers, that certainly sounds like smarm to me. When Amazon.com took advantage of the stupidity of the U.S. Patent Office by patenting one-click ordering and sued Barnes & Noble for patent infringement, the kind of low, scummy thing that only a lawyer would do, was he thinking about his customers?

I'm sure Bezos is quite aware of his competition. Disney was, too, when they took out those ads and precipitated a mass exodus of Time Warner customers. You have to think about your competition, or you probably won't be around very long.

Joe Rodrigue, New Haven

They'll Understand In Seattle John Ellis writes in his 5/10 "Convergence": "Bezos answered that he devoted very little time to thinking about his competition; he devoted virtually all of his time to thinking about his customers."

Really? Well, someone at Amazon spends a bit of time thinking about Barnes & Noble. The one-click patent infringement suit? The affiliate patent?

Brad Satoris, Seattle

Catalog Shopping As a case in point regarding how public libraries purchase books, the new Stephanie Gutmann title, The Kinder, Gentler Military received a jackboot to the neck in The New York Times Book Review yesterday. Don't expect to see this title on your local library shelf any time in the near future. Thanks to New York Press, however, and to John Strausbaugh's reasoned, critical discussion of the book ("Publishing," 3/22), news of this book will circulate anyway.

Mark Sannino, Hoboken

The Howie Chronicles The advertisement printed in the 4/26 New York Press equating the unethical treatment of animals with the Holocaust was outrageous and offensive.

The organization that paid for this advertisement, the Consistency in Compassion Campaign, needlessly insults Jews and other victims of the Nazis, and damages the cause of animal rights by comparing the various uses and misuses of animals with the organized mass murder of millions of human beings.

While there are serious points to be made about the treatment of animals in our society, analogies to the Holocaust, coupled with swastika imagery, and the juxtaposing of horrible death camp photos with those of caged animals (including pigs), advance none of these points. Such rhetoric confuses the issues and gratuitously demeans victims and survivors of the Holocaust.

Howie Katz, Manhattan

F--- H--- C--- MUGGER: I enjoy your writing and agree with most of what you say, but wish you would use only the first letter of trashy words, plus dots, so that I could save your otherwise brilliant writing for my children. Even Herb Caen used a dot system in the San Francisco Chronicle to make his meaning clear, but without wallowing.

Helene Taplin, San Bruno, CA

He's Making a List MUGGER: A few weeks ago, before the announcement that New York Press would return to the tabloid format, I wanted to write to ask you to remove the Al Gore mask and defeat Senator Giuliani. I had a Rudy list:

1) The handling of the Patrick Dorismond killing.

2) The Brooklyn Museum episode.

3) The Housing Works/Andrew Cuomo/paranoia-revealing escapade.

4) The history of relationships with school chancellors.

This is just a sampling of data that show that the Mayor has no concept of how democracy functions.

My point, tentatively, was that you should be careful what you wish for in your writing. You should settle for a Clinton in the Senate, a Bush in the White House?and that way Mark Green doesn't become mayor, and you don't have to go back to writing about Tribeca restaurants.

Then everything changes. The Mayor surprises everyone?he has human DNA. New York Press goes tabloid and atavistic things surface. MUGGER is writing about Tribeca restaurants again, and Slivka is doing an almost straightforward review of Commune ("Apples with Honey," 5/10).

You guys need the broadsheet. It allows you to be more expansive and languid at the same time.

Rob Jones, Manhattan

Hill's Billy MUGGER: My life must be very boring that I read your entire piece. Please be assured that I won't make the same mistake again.

Bill Miller, Paducah, KY

Who Isn't? MUGGER: I think your columns are great and very often eerily reflect my thinking. Last week, for instance, your column mirrored my own thoughts about Patrick Kennedy's idiocy. But imagine my surprise to learn that you're a fellow fan of Mister Ed!

Bob Steinhardt, Morristown, NJ

Gator Country MUGGER: I'm baaaaaaaaaack! My brief hiatus is over, thanks to the return of your old format. I don't know why I couldn't handle the two-pronged edition you tried, but it had a psychologically off-putting effect on me. Maybe it subconsciously reminded me of The New York Pravda Times, or maybe my small Greenwich Village apartment couldn't handle all the possibilities it entailed. Anyway, I happily read your column in last week's paper and all was right with this old tabloid world again.

And it's an election year! So I thought I'd let you know that I was back in the fold, as it were, and I'm glad it now folds only one way.

Your crustacean-loving brother in solidarity,

Anne Arundel Gator, Manhattan

Bermuda Short MUGGER: I always love your column, but I've missed your restaurant reviews. Now we get two restaurant reviews in the last three weeks. Keep it up. You've got good taste, and it's always fun to read a review from a non-food writer. Throw in a pan every now and then. I'm sure it'd be a riot.

Also, I've been meaning to mention this for years: Stop staying at the hideous Castle Harbor hotel in Bermuda. Yeah, I know it's close to your brother, but, as you always point out, it sucks. (I know it's closed now?maybe it will be better later.) Try Cambridge Beaches?the best.

Rich Glessmann, Manhattan

Y Accords MUGGER: I don't understand why you fawn over the Twig. If he?George W. Bush?lacked his Y chromosomes, he'd be, at best, working middle-management in some unknown company, drinking heavily and snorting cocaine. Having been a C student with an admitted drinking problem would and should disqualify any candidate immediately from becoming CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Becoming leader of the free world? Well, I'll leave that up to you to decide. Bush lacks brains; maybe he never had them. Bush lacks experience and he lacks an identity. When you think of him, you think again of those gametes he shares with the real president.

The real man elected on meritorious experience, not meritorious looks, was George Bush "Sr." But I'll let you in on a little secret: he's not running! His dopey little party-animal-turned-politician kid is. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do to change that fact except vote for Al Gore. And so I will.

Bruce Mintz, Las Vegas

Pass the Duchy One follows the provocative and highly amusing Taki from The Spectator to the Sunday Times to New York Press, which is a good home for him indeed. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have a broad group (it includes people in eastern Canada, western Canada and Australia) that circulates noteworthy Web writing, and someone is sure to pick up each Taki column and pass it round. The people who have been doing this are currently in Moscow, so I've taken over for them, and take this opportunity to thank Taki and wish him (and the rest of you at New York Press) well.

Norman Klenman, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia

Amazing! Electronic! Hi-Fi! Congratulations to all of you, especially to Taki. I used to immensely enjoy his weekly "Atticus" in the Sunday Times. It was the place to hear the truth about commies, imbeciles, Clintonians and the like. In fact, I am about to leave London for good?now that Enoch Powell and Alan Clark are dead, and good old Taki commutes between Gstaad and the Big Bagel. True, there is his column in The Spectator and this amazing electronic New York Press. All the best to you all.

Marcos de Escobar, London

Not for Internal Use Alexander Cockburn's chilling description of the militarization of American law enforcement ("Waking Up To a Police State," 5/3), warranted by the "war against drugs," brings to mind another war, a war that Bill Clinton assigned last week to the National Security Council, a war against women and children, a war of drugs, one in which the state has been given free rein even by observers as astute as Cockburn.

In November of 1998, in Maine, Valerie Emerson?having watched her "HIV positive" daughter die from AZT poisoning?won a unanimous ruling from the state Supreme Court granting her the right to raise her son free from the same toxin, mandated by state health officials. Last year, in Oregon, Kathleen Tyson was commanded by a court to cease breastfeeding her son. State agents regularly visited her home to monitor the baby for deviant behavior, such as the desire to suckle.

A mother in London recently went "underground" to raise her infant free of state poisoning. All this warranted by the "war" against AIDS, a war that the Clinton administration declared two weeks ago in response to a threat to U.S. "National Security," not only domestically, but in India, China and virtually all the African states. Thus the 15-year "drugs into bodies" onslaught that has been waged against gay men in the West has under Clinton become a campaign against women and their infants across the globe.

The president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, has convened a panel of dozens of scientists from around the world to examine the definition and causation of AIDS and the toxicity of AIDS medications. In a recent letter addressed to President Clinton and other world leaders, Mbeki said what long ago should have been shouted by progressives everywhere: "People who otherwise would fight very hard to defend the critically important rights of freedom of thought and speech occupy, with regard to the HIV/AIDS issue, the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths."

Health, too, is being militarized, with a corps of university-credentialed psy-ops spreading fear and an arsenal of toxic and lucrative drugs?and with the critics of state power, both left and right, AWOL.

Frank Lusardi, Manhattan

Petitt Mort I read Matt Zoller Seitz's 5/10 review of Colette Burson's new film Coming Soon, and though I do think that Burson, in her interview with George Tabb in the same film section, implicitly defended herself well against Seitz's diatribe, I simply could not let Seitz's be the final word.

It is clear from his first paragraph that Seitz completely misses the point of the film. He declares, with his critic's authority, that both Coming Soon and the other film he reviewed, Human Traffic, "want to be idiosyncratic, joyous comedies about the mindset of a generation that's enjoying the sexual, chemical and cultural freedoms won by their boomer parents."

This could not be a more inaccurate description of Coming Soon. I read Seitz and wondered how he could have sat through the entire movie and misunderstood it so completely. If Coming Soon were a comedy about celebrating the freedom and equality won by the sexual revolution, then it would be called Coming All the Time, and the three heroines would be leading peer-counseling groups with their boyfriends about understanding the female climax.

The trio's search for an orgasm is not an "obsession," as Seitz trivializes it, but rather a serious attempt on the part of the members of the trio to own their sexuality. Seitz chides Burson for taking this desire "at face value," as if girls actively in search of an orgasm must be betraying some deeper emotional void or imbalance, which they suffer because of their "burnt-out, divorced, fortysomething parents."

But why shouldn't their quest for an orgasm be taken literally? Does Seitz find it so terribly unrealistic to think that teenage girls might be as interested in their sexuality as teenage boys?

Seitz dismisses the film as "an ensemble comedy about sexually questioning rich girls." "It desperately wants to be an East Coast Clueless," he contends. But as George Tabb points out in his interview with the director, the term "comedy" should be used loosely. Coming Soon is funny only at first glance. While couched in lighthearted humor, the film is really about girls trying to own their sexuality. And that, for many men, is very scary. Scarier than, as Tabb wrote, any of those horror flicks with "that guy with the knives for fingers, the dude with the hockey mask or the flasher who knows what you did last summer." The film was threatening enough to win itself an NC-17 rating its first two times around, even though any 13-year-old can see people being cut up and blown apart any day of the week.

In her interview, Burson speculates as to why her film was perceived as so controversial. People aren't comfortable with female sexuality that hasn't been objectified and packaged in the cheap I'm-your-fantasy Britney Spears kind of way. ("I was born to make you happy," her song goes.) Britney's sexuality is not threatening to the establishment that packaged her, because she's all about serving their ends. But Stream, Jenny and Nell in Coming Soon are sexual in a completely different way. They are after their own sexual pleasure, because they realize that if they don't pursue it actively they could go through the rest of their lives never achieving an orgasm. (And one out of three women doesn't have orgasms.) Especially if they have boyfriends like Chad, who tries to convince Stream that she's had an orgasm when she hasn't, because her admitting otherwise would be too much of "an ego-blow."

These are not sex-crazed girls who are obsessed with orgasms. They are not riding on the coattails of their liberated parents, traipsing around after sexual exploits because they are having so much fun. Rather, they are exploring a difficult terrain, trying to understand and gain control of their sexuality and their bodies. Sure, they are liberated. They can place a singles ad in the paper without worrying about feeling slutty or depraved, and they can pick guys up at bars, but their primary sexual experiences are still with men like Chad, who tries to unsubtly push Stream's head into his lap when she leans in for a kiss, and then slumps back into a half-slumber as she massages her jaw to see if it still closes.

Seitz criticizes this scene as being the perfect indication that "there's little in Coming Soon that seems original or truthful." It's nice to know that he never did something that insensitive to his high school girlfriend, but if the scene doesn't ring true to him, all that it proves is that he has never been an 18-year-old girl. Having been with some less considerate men, I can say that that is one of the scenes that struck a deep chord. The beauty of the film is that, despite the exaggerated lifestyle and wealth of these girls, so many of the scenes do mimic our reality and experiences. It is these moments of recognition that make the film as a whole seem funny, even though they alone are not.

Seitz unwittingly conforms to Burson's description of the type of man who fails to comprehend the movie. One has to wonder why he holds this film in such contempt. Why does he save all of his heaviest artillery for a film that he predicts will "be gone from theaters in the blink of an eye"? Could it be because he is deeply uncomfortable with women unabashedly trying to make their bodies tools for their own sexual satisfaction?

Seitz contends that "the sister-doing-it-to-herself bit is an old one, and was done with more wit and panache in The Slums of Beverly Hills." Does that mean that one film dealing with female sexuality and empowerment is enough? It's been done well once, so it needn't be done again? Ask yourself how many films you've seen about male sexuality and coming of age. Dozens? A handful in the last season alone? Should women be satisfied with one valiant attempt, and then let the issue go because it risks appearing unoriginal?

Furthermore, it's interesting, though not surprising, that the only thing of merit that Seitz finds in a film about female sexuality is the performance of the leading male. I agree that Ryan Reynolds was very good, but if any character seemed a little exaggerated it was his. Seitz adores the Henry Lipschitz character, saying that he "represents a rebellion against society's corrosive nonsense. He doesn't seem to need validation from any person, institution or cultural entity?[and] he's aware of what's going on in the universe of contemporary teens but carefully selects which parts to participate in, rejecting anything that degrades him or makes him unhappy."

That's a lovely description, but how many 18-year-olds have really achieved such serenity? To me, that sounds like the description of the way that we all wished we were at 18. Lipschitz is more of a caricature than the girls, who in comparison are very nuanced and complex.

Victoria Petitt, Manhattan

Ancient Submariners I loved Godfrey Cheshire's excellent 4/12 review of Rules of Engagement so much I read it over the air on my public affairs show on WUSB (90.1 FM Stony Brook).

I was especially gratified to see it got into the sphincters of self-described moron John England and his bonehead counterpart Ted Klein, whose everything-but-the-swastika letters appeared in New York Press' 4/19 "Mail."

So you can imagine my disappointment when I read Cheshire's 4/19 column, in which he rhapsodizes over U-571?which sounds like another glorification of war?because, in this one, "Americans are the ones who retain a sense of honor, decency and clear moral boundaries."

I guess when Cheshire praises U-571 as a "real" war movie he means one that isn't "realistic." He longs for those good old days when our soldiers (at least in the movies) were good and noble and theirs were evil and nasty. For all its many other faults, Rules of Engagement at least sounds like what actually happens: our boys do horrible and repugnant things, and then a massive propaganda machinery (including Hollywood, which makes movies like Rules of Engagement and U-571 ) supplies moral justification. U-571 sounds like the sort of cotton-candy view of war and militarism that is even more dangerous.

Even in WWII, the so-called "Good War" that Cheshire seems to have such nostalgia for, the U.S. and the Allies employed heavily the now-standard practice of "strategic bombing"?that is, bombing civilian populations in order to terrorize them. Do the names Dresden and Hiroshima ring any bells?

Chris Sorochin, Brooklyn

Rope a Dope MUGGER: I'm so pleased that your view of George W. Bush is as positive as mine. I keep thinking about how Bush should approach the upcoming debates with Gore. Bush can't stoop to Gore's low level. I don't know if that would work, because Gore would stop at nothing to try to gain an advantage, but, somehow, I would rather make my point strongly with dignity and honor than to fall into Gore's trap. How any voter in his right mind can't see through Gore is beyond me, and yet, unfortunately, there are those who believe him and will probably vote for him. There are those who would vote for a dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket.

Helen Goodman, Delray Beach, FL

Gland of the Lost MUGGER: Read up a bit on early discovery/early stage prostate cancer. It is hardly debilitating, and it's easily treatable with a variety of proven therapies, which, in turn, are not debilitating. If the Mayor chooses not to run, it need not be because he has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Most notably, brachytherapy should enable him to campaign with only a few days of down time.

Jack Rippy, Lake Forest, CA

Hume Front MUGGER: You would be an outstandingly appropriate guest on Special Report with Brit Hume. Brit's a master. He cloaks his political persuasions when he is a moderator (not when he's a commentator, however) by deftly asking seemingly "fair and balanced" questions that are actually "un-" and "im-." How do I know? 'Cause Brit laughs at the sheer irrationality of events like the Kennedy suit against Tom DeLay.

Man, if you were on there, Brit would set you up real good. He did so with Walter Williams?the first time, I think, that Brit's had him on. Walter is unabashedly partisan. His views?he called the NAACP those "turkeys"?are hardly ever heard uttered.

Chris Matthews is an asshole, too. His support of John McCain had all the thermonuclearly subtle undertones of a fawning sycophant (kinda like me toward you). You on Hardball would be good, but not as good as on Special Report. Brit would stage and direct your appearance and presentation with supreme fluidity and polished acumen, and allow you to state your case clearly, cohesively and with maximum impact. Have Peggy Noonan and whoever else legislate to get you on Special Report. One appearance, and you would be guaranteed more. Your perspective is refreshingly unique. You would add substance. Your appearance would be galvanizing. Afterward, they would say of you: "He showed his grit with Brit."

Why do I persist in this crusade for you? Because them guys are getting more brazen in their strategy and tactics. The suit against DeLay, Elian's "trophy" appearance, the Million Mom March, Cheryl Mills' statements before Congress, Clinton's response to the disbarment hearings, the media's refusal to concentrate on the rift between Gore and Bradley even as they overindulge on the tension between Bush and McCain (it's said CBS reported that a reporter had to "pull" McCain's endorsement of Bush out of him), the liberal media's attacks on Rudy Giuliani and on and on?all these things mandate that voices like yours receive national prominence.

Hey, The O'Reilly Factor would be good, too. Hardball and Hannity & Colmes are theater of the absurd; both are a sanitized version of Jerry Springer. You need a good one-on-one forum.

Don't relent, my man! We need you out here!

George Mikos, Concord, CA

Bray of Pig MUGGER: I do hope you're wrong about the New York Senate race. Rudy Giuliani's departure from the battlefield would leave the victory, by default, to the enemy. I can't imagine how awful it would be to have that odious, hollow hag preaching from her own soapbox instead of from one borrowed from her husband. I seriously doubt she would get deeply involved in the business of representing New Yorkers, and her time in office would probably embolden her to run for president down the line. I think I'm going to be ill.

Kevin Miller, Spring Hill, FL

All the Termagant's Men Let me explain why Rudy Giuliani's marital infidelity is important for more than gossip:

First, you may not like Bill Clinton, but he didn't take Monica Lewinsky to Georgetown games and then zip off to Duke Ziebert's for dinner and spend long weekends together with her at Camp David.

In short, he didn't throw his 11 blowjobs in his wife's face. The only reason it became news is because Ken Starr was tipped. And it's not like Clinton didn't take care to keep his wife from finding out.