The Mail

THE MAIL

This week: The Michael Moore floodgates are wide open, Gabi G. gets her due props and Ann Coulter has a big, hairy nut sack. Plus: Did we mention the Michael Moore floodgates have opened?

The Implication Being?

Tell Judy McGuire that there is a product sold (in Canada, at least) over-the-counter called Beano ("Judy McGuire," 6/23). Taken with a meal, it greatly reduces the quantity and odor of intestinal gas from that meal. She should give it a try.

Francis Marsden, Calgary, Alberta

Moore vs. White, I

Armond White is completely out of touch with reality ("Film," 6/23). This asshole defends the worst president our great nation has ever known? It's frightening to see a hack journalist like this have his work published. Right-wingers like this are utterly insane.

Eric Roman, via email

Shrunken-Heads Club

I am writing to reassure Jim Knipfel about his incredible shrinking brain ("Leprosy?!?," 6/23). You say yourself that you feel your occasional headaches are probably due to hangovers and smoking too much. Well—bingo! That is also what is causing your brain to shrink. Your doctor should have told you that. Smoking cigarettes will shrink your brain (a good reason to quit). Drinking alcohol will certainly shrink your brain. Doing drugs shrinks your brain too, if you want to know.

The good news is that the more education someone has, the smaller her/his brain will be, so it may also be a sign that you are actually "using" your brain. Despite your smaller brain size, if you keep active mentally into your later years, you should overcome symptoms associated with it such as memory loss, etc. Also, you could take some Omega 3s. That might help plump up your brain.

I know this because I, too, was recently told by a neurologist that my brain is shrinking. It's nothing to get all excited about.

Diane Saarinen, Brooklyn

Sperto Spurts

Hey, Mark Ames, if you're having a problem ejaculating, maybe thinking of Michael Moore sitting on your face will help you out ("The Coulter Challenge," 6/23). And why are you watching Hannity? What happened to Air America? Is that over already? It's probably due to the "I don't stand for anything, I'm against everything" world you live in. And Ann Coulter is still intelligent, witty, frank and very attractive to men.

Alex Sperto, Manhattan

Ed Coulter

Mark Ames: You do know that Ann Coulter is actually a man, don't you ("The Coulter Challenge," 6/23)? Look carefully. Check out the Adam's apple. Check out the facial bone structure. Check out the forehead. Listen to her rants against women. Maybe she doesn't know she was originally male. Perhaps her parents made a tough decision when she was born, and it was the wrong one. All I know is, you could ask anyone with halfway- decent gaydar, and they would tell you she's definitely not a true female.

I've never understood why anyone finds her attractive. Aside from her being definitely masculine, there's the fact that she's absolutely psychotic and clearly wears her madness upon her face. She's about as appealing as a hernia.

K. Edward Owen, Grand Rapids, MI

A Mushroom Walks Into a Bar…

I just wanted to say thank you to New York Press and to whoever chose my band, the Fun Guys, as one of the "Band Names of the Week" in the June 16 issue.

Ralph Conte, Yonkers

Moore vs. White, II

I rarely agree with Armond White's film reviews and sometimes violently disagree with them. But I feel compelled to write in appreciation for his words on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ("Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23). For the record, I'm an antiwar liberal who thinks Bush and his neo-fascists are a disaster. But Armond gets to the good goddamn heart of what's real when he takes Moore to task for his insidious subversion of journalism in general, and documentary filmmaking specifically.

Moore has a history of doing this, but never so ham-handedly. Armond is right to link Fahrenheit 9/11 with Control Room. Both films fail to, as he so aptly puts it, "tell us what life is like now, in what the West knows as the Terrorist Millennium." Merde, indeed.

Josh Mooney, Manhattan

Moore vs. White, III

I have no idea on what basis Armond White is calling Michael Moore a fascist ("Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23). The only line in the article that tries to directly explain this seems to suggest that a fascist is someone "certain to the point of hostility" of his own rightness. This seems an absurdly over-broad definition. It certainly does not support the sensationalism of the story's headline or your cover teaser.

Isn't it White's contention that Moore tries to smear his opponents with unsupported insinuation? Isn't that what your headline does to Moore?

Aaron Javsicas, Brooklyn

Swedish Speedballs

I am writing in response to the letter you got from an attorney representing the Swedish Massage Industrial Complex last issue ("The Mail," 6/23). Everybody knows Swedes are all hookers. And might I add that high-powered attorneys from Manhattan have a great deal of interest in taking away from the fact that they are far bigger prostitutes than masseuses.

Mikey Bell, via email

Moore vs. White, IV

Armond White is such a moron ("Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23)! Like mankind hadn't invented torture until Reservoir Dogs came out. Tell him to get a brain.

Robert Dier, Seattle

Moore vs. White, V

I haven't yet seen Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, but I plan to this week, for better or worse, so I can't speak to the film directly (Armond White, "Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23). Instead, I'll turn one of reviewer White's favorite hobbies back on him: criticizing other film reviewers.

White's review of the film, and New York Press decision to run the inflammatory headline on its front cover (Moore=Fascist?) is counterproductive. White accuses Moore of fascism, but goes out to prove this assertion not one iota. In using the term, he is guilty of the same crime of which he accuses Moore: provoking a knee-jerk emotional reaction rather than encouraging a more restrained, rational one. It's a discredit to some of the better points he makes in the review.

Adam Capitanio, Manhattan

Good Company

As a longtime reader, I salute Gabriella Gershenson as the paper's best food writer since the departed Sam Sifton. Her column and restaurant reviews are the most consistently rewarding writing in the paper. Keep it up!

Also, not that I want to encourage more crowds, but Roberto's in the Bronx may be the best Italian in the city.

Mark Schwartz, Manhattan

Terminal Preppies

In response to Max Blythe's silly comment in "The Mail" last week (6/23) that liberals, men in particular, are former geeks just trying to live up to the godlike standards set by frat boys and their beer-guzzling, sorority- girl-humping, white-hat-wearing ways—I'd just like to say that's ridiculous.

"Always jealous of the rebellious type, they have found their niche in life by being a rebel behind a typewriter." Exactly! When I think of frat boys, as one recently in the college scene, I think of those future white-bread corporate Americans balancing precariously on a keg. Did they bow to social pressure and actually go to class? No. Being the rebels they were, they drank daddy's money through a beer bong for four straight years. And for all that work, they will always have the memory of when they were the big men on campus, even when their beer bellies are quickly expanding and they're running the family appliance business in Podunk, Idaho.

Mary Beth Quirk, Manhattan

Moore vs. White, VI

I'm no fan of Michael Moore's orotundity, but if White's going to trash Fahrenheit 9/11's corruption of documentary and entertainment convincingly, he'll have to stop making revolving-door arguments (Armond White, "Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23).

First, if White's going to complain of the film's lack of objectivity, he needs to stop telling us about Moore's "certainty to the point of hostility that he is right"—about what Moore "wants" to do rather than what he does. If Moore is wrong to jump to conclusions about Bush, then neither should White claim knowledge of Moore's mindset.

Second, White needs to stop imagining who Fahrenheit 9/11's "audience" is and what they might say, and then railing at these phantoms for the reasons they might say it. That kind of ad hominem barking is as suspect as anything in Bowling for Columbine.

Third, White can't argue that people in France view Americans stereotypically if he insists on using phrases like "Bush's opponents . . . believe that Americans are always wrong." In stereotyping a vast group in order to justify xenophobic statements, White is guilty of that which he condemns, even as he condemns it.

Fourth, if White contends that documentary audiences should be trusted to make up their own minds without Moore's prodding, then White might not want to suggest that viewing Reservoir Dogs could have been responsible for the torture of Abu Ghraib. If audiences are able to form opinions rationally, then they can't consist of vacant meat golems whose criminal acts are traceable to the films of Quentin Tarantino.

Fifth, what is the point of slagging Fahrenheit 9/11 for being insufficiently objective in order to praise JFK, the histrionic conspiracy theory opera that promises to put the sag in saga? Finally, it's ludicrous to characterize certain U.S. citizens as "American masochists" simply because they don't identify with the current administration.

In a non-solipsistic universe, hating Bush is not to be conflated with hating oneself. To paraphrase White, punk typecasting doesn't serve the greater argument.

Rob Hardin, Manhattan

Promoted. Twice.

Please tell me that the person who wrote, "David Cross is not funny" has since been fired in the most horrific possible manner ("50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers," 3/31).

David Wells, via email

Moore vs. White, VII

I didn't expect to be writing to y'all with each new issue, but it has become thus! The first article I read of yours, last week, "Spite" something or other—was really good—borderline awesome (Mark Ames, "Spite the Vote," 6/9).

This article, however, (Armond White, "Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23) is near-total bunk. In the top half of the article—as much as I could bear to read—the author makes all sorts of outlandish, unsupported assertions, goes down the "but you are not telling the stories about the rebuilt schools" road, and uses language so over the top that one has to think he's a neo-con writing for the Heritage Foundation—or maybe it's Ann Coulter's pen name—something—who knows? After last week's article, I expected good stuff in your paper, even if it is right-wing. If one wants to erase the Middle East with tactical nuclear weapons, I'd disagree, but we could still discuss it intelligently [Editor's note: We could?]. This writer comes off as unhinged, too absorbed in himself to even feign the least sense of objectivity. Better authors, please.

Peter Smith, Washington, DC

Moore vs. White, VIII

Bravo Armond White ("Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23)! Bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo! I couldn't have said it better myself—and I have tried. I will send this article to everyone!

Stephanie DiIorio, Brooklyn

Friedman's Follies

Congratulations on Matt Taibbi's piece, "Maids, Trains and Olive Trees" (6/23). It was a beautiful piece of writing, and I admire it extremely. I think it is the curse of the comic writer: the comparison to Twain. But in this case, don't you think the combination of restraint and absurdity merits that comparison?

Scott Ardley, Oakland, CA

GD PNT!

Taibbi's critique of Tommy Friedman's Middle East peace plan ignores one crucial element ("Maids, Trains and Olive Trees," 6/23). Friedman's Indian-made, Chinese-delivered cellphones are likely equipped with text messaging and will, he believes, provide those "impressionable Arabs" with a much-needed forum for meaningful discourse. Text messaging has fostered literary and thoughtful eloquence in America's youth, and it's insulting that Taibbi thinks it wouldn't work for Arabs and Persians. OMG! FRDOM ROX! THX MSTCHE FRDMAN!!!

Zach Miller, Allston, MA

Like We Can Afford a Post Writer!

I'm not someone who thinks "Fascist" and "Nazi" can't be used in present-day comparisons, especially when it's clear that there are still Fascist and Nazi tendencies all the way up through our highest levels of government (Armond White, "Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23). However, it is the worst kind of publicity stunt to link someone with fascism on your cover when absolutely no evidence to support such a link is provided in the article within. When exactly did you hire the staff of the New York Post to write your headlines?

Christopher Stansfield, Manhattan

Because We Can

Why print this story, even before the film comes out to general viewers (Armond White, "Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23)? Are you attempting to dissuade the general public from having their own opinion before setting up a debate?

Not everyone has the ability to live in an ivory tower like Armond White. His article blankets the general moviegoer as dumb and thoughtless. But, what is worse, he sets up a forum for more fence-sitting and less action. How typical of the ivory-tower safe havens.

I intend to see this film on its opening weekend, and have invited many others to join me. That decision was made after reading the Sunday Times article, "Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?" To run your article, which basically draws the curtain shut on the film before it even opens, does more to reveal your own fears and biases than it does to promote an intelligent discussion of the film—which is, ironically, the same complaint you use to invalidate the film itself. Armond White seems too proud to look in the mirror.

Ben Hagyard, Brooklyn

Moore vs. White, IX

Somewhere in Armond White's orgy of criticism in his review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ("Film of the Fascist Liberal," 6/23), there may be an explanation of how life really works. From his review:

Lunacy, insensitivity, careless[ly], small-minded esthetes, ineptitude, masochistic audiences, naive, ruse, charlatans, sham for guillible viewers, non-inquiring corruption of documentary, cheap easy laughs, simplistic outrage, pity, self-righteous anger, merde, facile, merde, avoids complexity, trite, pseudo-serious audiences, superficial provocation, ad hominem attack, lazy, obfuscates... with sentimentality, avoids complexity, morally offensive editing, pompous filmmaker, incapable of political discourse, hypocrisy, obtuse journalism, snide middle-class contempt, debacle, rhetorical hodge-podge, superficial, culturally ignorant, clueless, dumbed-down, class vice, infuriating, condescending, cheap shots, poor

Unquote, Whew! I think he didn't enjoy it!

A lack of explaining how life really works is, according to White, what is wrong with this film. White believes this is Michael Moore's obligation, but fortunately for him as a film reviewer he is not obligated to give this explanation (because film reviewers are given a special exemption in the Journalists & Media Rules & Regulations Field Guide). You see, White is angry (clearly quite angry) that Moore didn't choose to make his film about why George Bush became such an arrogant fool, or how Quentin Tarantino movies are partially to blame for the torture at Abu Ghraib.

Armond White's explanation goes like this: Quentin Tarantino made sadism hip through his movies (Reservoir Dogs in particular), and then he sent it around the world, and maybe that is how Saddam Hussein got the idea, and then he set the precedent for our own breed of torturers. Michael Moore and Quentin Tarantino are not all to blame for the evil of modern times though, thank God. There is also Kathleen Turner, Jerry Shatzberg, the Cannes Film Festival, postmodern capitalist pop and pop trivia (for malnourishing the moral lives of audiences), beltway politicians, Wall Street bankers, media charlatans, blah, blah, blah... Jesus, I can't wait until Armond White makes a film. That should be fun to watch: He can pair it as a double billing with Eraserhead for a late-night theater extravaganza for suicidal insomniacs.

Although I did very much enjoy reading Armond White's sweet prose, it was mostly to admire his clever skill at using so many words and yet providing so little information of interest.

Peter Williams, Guangzhou, China

Moore vs. White, X

Excellent article by Armond White, "Film of the Fascist Liberal" (6/23). And this coming from a right-of-center perspective that I imagine is much different than the writer's. But occasionally common sense and integrity transcend politics and manage to reach a broader audience. This is one of those occasions.

Cinnamon Stillwell, San Francisco

Moore vs. White, XI

I was having a rather enjoyable walk home on Tuesday when I happened upon your newspaper, appropriately disguised as wind-tossed trash. What had been a good day of productive work, comfortable weather and a nice commute to the office was brought to an abrupt end as soon as I kicked your trash/paper over and looked at the front page. "Is This Man a Fascist?" (6/23). Great Photoshop work there with the flames... I was thoroughly spooked.

Are you kidding me? Last time I checked, all Michael Moore was guilty of was producing a film he knew his distribution company, whipped into submission by FCC (Fascist Conservative-only Communication commission), wouldn't release. "It's seven minutes of the most powerful man in the world suffering. He's miserably distracted." Seven minutes of suffering? Please! Is this man not our commander-in-chief? If he suffers for seven minutes from a terrorist attack involving planes, how long will we have to wait for him to get over himself and do something if we're attacked with a nuclear device or a biological weapon? Forty minutes? An hour? A day?

Bush's utmost and ultimate responsibility is to be our commander-in-chief and provide clear and instantaneous command of our armed forces in a time of war or emergency. He cannot allow himself to be miserably distracted if he wants to be president. He could have suffered in the limousine on the way to Air Force One, where he could get more up-to-date information and perhaps have expedited NORAD's slow-ass response to the attacks.

I'll be taking your paper now and putting it in a recycling bin where it belongs. And I'll try to remember how pleasant life was before your dirty paper wrapped itself around my shoe.

Ari Reyes, Manhattan

Moore vs. White, XII

Armond White's piece on Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 in the June 23 issue is a biased political screed, not an honest review of the film. I did not start out a fan of Moore's, but each of his films has been less sentimental, more cohesive and more fact-based. This film is almost there—gimmicks are few and non-central, documentation is substantial. Moore was careful on this one, because he didn't want it to be attacked on these grounds.

White doesn't care; his blanket swipes at Moore suggest someone who didn't watch the current film with objectivity. Nor is there any objectivity in White's political points. Moore uses footage of President Bush at an elementary school after he knew a plane had hit the WTC, sitting for seven minutes in the photo-op rather than leading any action. Moore suggests that without an advisor telling Bush what to do, he did nothing. White says the same footage shows "the most powerful man in the world suffering. He's miserably distracted." So we're supposed to feel sorry for Bush that he was uncomfortable while he sat there not sure whether he should abort the photo-op to address this national crisis?

White then takes an hilariously non-sequiturial potshot, calling Moore's "insensitivity" toward Bush's personal pain "liberalism with a fascist face." As far as I can tell, this is just a random string of words intended to discredit anyone on the left. There is nothing about Moore's handling of the elementary school footage that was liberal or not, fascist or not. Even more inexplicable is the editor's decision to bring the word "fascist" into the front-page title.

Philip F. Rose, Manhattan

Moore vs. White, XIII

I am writing in response to your recently published "Film of the Fascist Liberal" by Armond White (6/23). I found the article to be full of contradictions and written with a self-righteous predisposition against and a blinding hatred of liberalism.

For example, White accuses Michael Moore of being a fascist liberal, which clearly is an oxymoron.

I find it necessary to mention that I myself am moderately liberal, and a Democrat, but am not a supporter of Michael Moore for those reasons specifically. Personally, I support anyone who is willing to present their views to the public, from any point on the political spectrum, aside from the extremes. In our own Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson states that the powers of a government must be derived from the consent of the governed, and that it is the right and duty of the people to question government policy. Such is the basis of democracy.

White accuses supporters of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 of failing to criticize the film intelligently. Perhaps if those supporters shared his own political views, White would be able to recognize their intelligence. I am astonished that this review made it to publication.

Ryan Kinnet, Salinas, CA

Moore vs. White, XIV

Just finished reading "Film of the Facist Liberal" (6/23). This was my first time reading an Armond White movie review—and my last. I do read the mailbag regularly and was aware that White seems to be pretty universally hated. Now I can understand why. His blathering review of Fahrenheit 9/11 rambles all over the place, and he intermingles it with a review of Control Room, as if the two were inseparable.

In his opening paragraph, White puffs and fumes about the Cannes conspiracy led by Quentin Tarantino, the movie Reservoir Dogs, torture, Abu Ghraib and how "we're stuck in the middle of a global crisis for which Michael Moore [does not] have an answer." No shit! Michael Moore is a filmmaker. George Bush is president. Which of these two men gets paid to sort out global crises?

Moore is negligent, White tells us. He leaves out so much from his film: "Moore doesn't separate the election from the terrorists' attacks or from the war on Iraq. There's no insight into the political process or why politicians routinely cheat their constituency. Neither Fahrenheit nor Control Room tell us what life is like now, in what the West knows as the Terrorist Millennium." And, "Moore doesn't understand the link between the Entertainment Industrial Complex and the Military Industrial Complex"—whatever the fuck that means.

Moore also doesn't discuss how the World Bank works, or how DNA mutates, nor does he talk about how global warming might be affecting George Bush's mind.

There's so much shit in White's writing, but let me focus on two giant turds. He wants us to believe that in those chilling seven minutes after the second plane had struck the Twin Towers on 9/11 and George Bush, fully informed of this, continued to read My Pet Goat to the Florida elementary school class, that we should view this not as Moore would like—an irresolute, even paralyzed, president in over his head—but rather, "It's seven minutes of the most powerful man in the world suffering." Is this guy for real?

And get this one: "Glossing the issues of 'a staged war,' emphasizing Bush's incompetence and the mendacity of his cabinet is essentially an ad hominem attack, not ideological or moral reasoning." Since when is it ad hominem to point out a government official's incompetence and mendacity when he is incompetent and lies all the time? I would prefer brute honesty and to be told that "Bush really fucked over the country." As for White's desire for "ideological or moral reasoning," isn't it worth noting a faulty ideology, and isn't it morally wrong to lie?

When January 2005 comes around and George W. Bush is led off to The Hague and the International War Crimes Tribunal by guys in the blue helmets, I believe Michael Moore will have had the last word.

Gerald S. Rellick, Santa Ana, CA