Therapy Therapy? I am a psychologist. A patient ...

I am a psychologist. A patient of mine came in and started his session expressing his hatred of your front-page picture of a Jewish man with a suicide bomber’s belt ("Suicide Jews," 6/18). Rarely have I seen anything as ugly, as offensive and anti-Semitic as that picture. If I were an activist, I would go around to all of your advertisers and ask them to stop advertising in your paper. You owe the world your apologies.

Murray Krim, Manhattan

Rushkoff Is Right

Just a few words of support for the great piece of journalism by Mr. Rushkoff. Judging from responses in last week’s mail, one can only give credit to Mr. Rushkoff’s insight: Aren’t these reactions exactly the ones described by him?

The constant mixing of issues (terrorism, the Third Reich, anti-Semitism, etc.) is an old and populist strategy in this debate. Common sense and historical knowledge on the other hand seem to be fading, and the articles published demonstrate it perfectly.

E. Keller, Manhattan

N.J. and Cabal: Perfect Together

Kudos to Alan Cabal for taking his bar and restaurant patronage to New Jersey ("New York City," 6/18). It’s pathetic to see New York smokers huddled on sidewalks outside bars like 12-year-olds behind a schoolhouse. But such conduct is yet another manifestation of the passivity displayed by so many New Yorkers who just lie down and take whatever politically correct dog shit the elite zealots decide to decree.

When nanny politicians start picking up my bar tab, I’ll concede they have the right to dictate my behavior in a bar. Until then I’ll join Cabal in saying "on to New Jersey."

Breck Ardery, Manhattan

A Friend in Tweed…

Matt Taibbi: I’d like to know why, after you make plain the anti-democratic thrust of much of U.S. foreign policy over many decades ("Cage Match," 6/25), you feel it’s necessary to assert that you "won’t go in [the] direction" of what you call the "whiny, finger-pointing left," typified by the "tweedy stench of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn."

Oh, you won’t? But isn’t that what you’d just done? Please explain how we are to distinguish between your review of U.S. policy and the arguments of Chomsky and Zinn. How are yours any less "finger-pointing" or "left" than theirs? And, as you apparently don’t differ with them on facts or logic, why should we consider any of them "whiny" or associated with "stench"?

If your pointed disavowals were intended to render your views more acceptable to a broader audience, I think the approach is badly mistaken. Such a maneuver smacks of bad faith; worse, it’s reminiscent of the habits of toadying, red-baiting Cold War liberals. Hurling insults at others who, from the margins of public debate, have raised essentially the same points you have only serves to validate the prejudices that consign all critical views of U.S. policy–your own included–to the margins in the first place, regardless of their merits. Face it–if you’re hoping to open the eyes of the Russ Smiths of this world, all the anti-Chomsky slurs in the world won’t cut it.

Ronald MacKinnon, Manhattan

Setting Sights on Seitz

In his review of Manito last week ("Film," 6/25), Matt Zoller Seitz takes aim at critics who believe, as he puts it, that "if it ain’t on 35mm it ain’t cinema." This, he believes, is analogous to saying "music isn’t really music unless it’s a classical piece performed by a minimum of 12 musicians."

The analogy is false. Beethoven wrote his Moonlight Sonata for a single piano. Any expansion of the piece into a full symphonic work would corrupt his mission. One could argue that neither classical nor pop is meant to be performed during rush hour in the IRT W. 34th St. station. What emerges is cacophony, not music. If the Washington Heights area that Franky G’s character calls home in Manito is seedy, we don’t need gritty, hand-held camera techniques to illustrate the concept. The rough edges of the nabe can best be shown on 35mm.

Harvey Karten, Director, New York Film Critics Online

Playas and Hoze

To quote: "Ho Chi Minh was the actual Thomas Jefferson clone. But our decision to cross this hugely popular revolutionary leader triggered his conversion to communism..." ("Cage Match," 6/25).

Just wanted to add a little clarification–"Uncle Ho" had been "converted to communism" long before he got crossed by the West. From the end of WWI through the early 20s at least, he studied in Moscow, and later had been busy organizing the revolution from Hanoi, recruiting and training the Viet Minh to resist and harass the French colonialists, before Japan’s (brief) occupation.

After WWII, Ho saw a chance to liberate his people altogether, and asked the U.S. for assistance in 1946. But naturally, because of his ties to the Soviet Union, our best and brightest at the time believed he couldn’t be trusted. So they chose instead to let de Gaulle hijack U.S. policy in the region, out of sympathy for the French who suffered so much during the Vichy years (sound familiar?), and allowed the French to return and reclaim their vested financial interests. We know the rest.

Thomas A. Olson, Riverdale, NY

Gateway Letter

Mark Ames’ ("Mail," 6/25) comment that Jacob Sullum’s lack of enthusiasm for the drugs he sampled indicates "he’s pandering to the mainstream and a fucking lunatic. Or just a liar…" tells more about Ames’ compulsions than it does about Sullum’s methodology.

Contrary to prohibitionist propaganda and apparently to Ames’ thinking as well, sampling any substance does not automatically induce a craving for more, any more than one drink leads inexorably to alcoholism. Like Sullum, there are millions who have "been there, done that," and feel no urge to repeat the drug experience, not because it was unpleasant, but because it became unnecessary. Their interest is in cognitive liberty, not in drugs, legal or otherwise.

John Gorman, Queens

In-House Idiots

What’s with the cover photo on the "Suicide Jews" issue ("Suicide Jews" 6/18)? What did the photo have to do with the article? Was the photo Rushkoff’s idea, or did you idiots come up with that on your own? Shock and blah.

Blake Cohen, Manhattan

Again with the "Idiot"?

Mr. Rushkoff (6/18) is eager for us all to know how hated and feared he is by the Jewish community. If it’s even true, it’s certainly not because he’s so anti-establishment, as he asserts, but rather because he’s an idiot. He is everything that annoys us in the establishment–an arrogant, poorly educated critic whose only interest in the community at large is in proving how oppressed by and excluded from it he is.

His article is chock full of errors, the most humorous being that there are "Israelites" in the Torah. But the most significant is the thesis itself: two Jews, three opinions goes the saying, and it’s as true now as ever. There is as much diversity on religious, cultural and Zionist matters as ever and the debates are loud, passionate and unending. If his goal is to remain feeling alone and unique in the Jewish community, like some kind of prophet or 16-year-old who thinks nobody understands him, then I’ll reserve the following, but if not, he ought to join one of the many wonderfully critical Jewish communities on "this… island." (Apparently New York Jews only live on Manhattan now.)

Jews Against the Occupation, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and about a billion other organizations might prove sufficiently radical for Mr. Rushkoff’s desired reputation. In the meantime, he should do some more research, learn where criticisms originate (R. Wolpe was criticized by his congregation, not the other way around) and learn to take a joke, especially one designed to give him the kind of reputation he seems so eager to prove anyway.

Ben Tobias, Manhattan

The Rushkoff Defense

Caught between the conflicting goals of submitting articulate comments on Mr. Rushkoff’s magnificent piece ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) or timely ones, I opted for the latter. Along comes Douglas Rushkoff, just in the nick of time. Articulating powerfully how centuries of persecution and unpredictable modern social and economic forces have threatened the soul of Judaism, Mr. Rushkoff’s comments take their place in the great procession of Torah and other commentary stretching back through the 3500-plus years of Jewish thought and worship.

Essential as Mr. Rushkoff’s analysis is for Judaism, it is equally so for the rest of humanity. In Western culture and civilization (to say nothing of that of the Middle East), only the Greeks can have any claim to such formative influence as the Hebrews. It is high time that Jewish values and thought reclaim their rightful, and inclusive, place at the head of civilization’s table. Money for heavily fortified West Bank settlements has nothing to do with it, much less do Baruch Goldstein, Kach and their followers, who are as far from Jewish tradition as any other of history’s numerous bands of murderous fanatics and thugs.

Three cheers, and two blessings, for and on Douglas Rushkoff.

Nicholas Gunther, Stamford, CT

What Does Bronfman Look Like?

I enjoyed Rushkoff’s article ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) and have only one objection: the picture on the front cover. It’s totally misleading. If you wanted to represent the people he’s really up against, you should have had a short woman in her mid 50s with a chic haircut and a Tahari suit. The ultra-orthodox are less opposed to the sort of thinking Rushkoff puts forward than are the Bronfmans, UJAs and Roiphes of the world.

S. O., Manhattan

Dilute! Dilute! OK!

It was so nice to see Herbn Love mentioned in your "Provisionary" column in issue 24 ("Provisionary," 6/11). We wanted to let you know that we don’t really consider ourselves an energy drink. We are an all-natural, organic, herbal aphrodisiac.

Herbn Love’s sweet, nurturing formula was lovingly created by a very special world-renowned herbalist in the canyons of Ojai, CA. We are so proud of the quality that sets us apart from the other functional beverages out there that we thought we would share that with you.

Sarah Werrin, Philadelphia

Rushkoff the Reject

What a rambling, incoherent mess Mr. Rushkoff ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) has written. He is entirely lacking in the fundamental core principles of the faith he critiques. From what I can see, we are witnesses to narcissistic rage. Rushkoff reminds me of the annoying types who, having been excluded from fraternities, prep schools and country clubs, devote all of their energies to attacking them.

Noah Heftler, Manhattan

Our Hawaiian Beatnik Friend

Thanks to Mark Ames ("Books," 6/24) for telling it like it is in his review of Jacob Sullum’s Saying Yes. I’m a recreational drug user; I’m not ashamed of that, and I’m not proud of that. Sullum must be a repressed soul and associate with a large numbers of squares or else fears shocking mama. The title of the book is Saying Yes, but this wishy-washy moderate puritan doesn’t say yes, no or anything. He invokes his right to remain silent and maintains his authorial distance from his subject. So I will either avoid his book like the plague or make a big bonfire out of every copy printed.

John Arnold, Honolulu

Highly Offensive, Blatantly Offensive–Make Up Your Mind

In case you didn’t realize, your latest cover ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) is in extreme poor taste and is highly offensive. Considering that Jews are targeted around the world by suicide terrorists (Israel, Tunisia, Morocco), portraying a religious Jew as a suicide bomber displays exceedingly poor judgment. Since September 11, 2001, the world has witnessed a dramatic and shocking increase in anti-Semitism both in print and in actions and deeds. In this issue, it appears as if you are contributing to this disturbing trend.

If you are looking to grab attention, it works; however, you sacrifice any integrity in the process. Clearly, the point of the cover article could have been made without such offensive imagery. Although freedom of speech provides you with the right to print almost anything you want, common sense and decency dictate editorial restraint before publishing something so blatantly offensive.

Joshua Corbin, Manhattan

Abraham and Isaac

Doug Rushkoff ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) is a little long in the tooth ("42 years circumcised") to be playing the enfant terrible. Rushkoff wants to address what it means to be Jewish. What should be the role of Judaism in a modern and primarily secular society? Modern Jewish communal and intellectual history has been grappling with these issues since the days of Spinoza. There have generally been three broad responses.

The first has been to reaffirm traditional Jewish belief and practice and, when besieged, retreat into insular communities. The fervor and insularity of large parts of the Orthodox community comes from just such a preservationist mentality.

The second is to try to work out substantial change in Jewish practice and even traditional belief while retaining (and often emphasizing) other values as a true core of Judaism. In its milder forms, this entailed a more rapid pace of change in the vast body of Jewish religious law, which in this country was particularly the work of the Conservative movement. Reform Jews stem from a series of philosophical thinkers (not all reformers) like Moses Mendelssohn, Abraham Geiger and Leo Baeck who attempted to proclaim a particular Jewish moral vision of universal import but which gave Jews a particular responsibility to be its bearers and exponents. Rushkoff in his calmer moments sounds like many modern products of the Reform tradition, so it is hardly surprising he often finds a warm reception among non-traditional Jews.

The third response is to proclaim that Judaism is superfluous and has become irrelevant in a modern, skeptical, liberal society where "most thinking adults...don’t believe in an all-powerful creature with the white beard." The adherents of this third stream have been silently slipping away for hundreds of years. They have often been agnostics or free-thinkers, Ethical Culturists or Unitarians. Of course, to the extent their descendents fail to share their advanced sentiments, or marry others of more benighted religious persuasions, their families quietly slip into the Christian mainstream.

No part of Judaism rejects conversion or converts, but only Reform actively welcomes "inter-married" families where there is a strong intent to raise the children as Jews. Other Jews are simply concerned they will be too subject to compromises of Jewish practice, belief and education stemming from the overwhelming gravitational force of an intensely Christian environment.

Actively committed Jews generally want to try to make Judaism and the Jewish community work better. They don’t have time for a parasitic iconoclast like Rushkoff who challenges their legitimacy and denigrates them while he makes zero contribution or effort as part of Jewish institutions, even to the extent of affiliating with a presumably congenial "Humanistic" congregation. Rushkoff wants everyone to spend vast efforts on his dorm-room bull sessions to decide whether there is much point to continued Jewish existence at all.

A lot of Jews have already decided their responses to that question. Rushkoff and kindred souls will have to decide theirs from a vast array of possible affiliations and an immense Jewish literature on religion, philosophy and ethics. Judging, however, from this essay and the apparent thought and research behind it, Rushkoff hasn’t been working very hard at his questions and doesn’t intend to.

Paul Isaac, Larchmont, NY