Written by None - Do not Delete on . Posted in Posts.


You can scarcely say that
Germany’s treatment after the war was self-righteous. Ask the Israelis
about that. After suffering at German hands in two world wars, I doubt many
others in Europe would agree with you either. Large German corporations that
had used slave labor during the war were let off very lightly. If the price
the Germans paid for their aggression was being “demoralized by endless
reproaches,” that’s tough.

No one is interested in
de-Germanizing Germany, and Germans today would be insulted by your statement
that they are somehow “less German.” Nor do they “eagerly disown
their own rich cultural traditions.” Have you ever been there? Germans
are very proud of their culture. Even rebellious kids study the piano and play
Beethoven. European classical music is part of the fabric of life there, unlike

As for Japan, I think few
Japanese, outside of the right-wing nationalist wackos, would find much to agree
with in your analysis. Japan before 1945 was run by militarists. It was not
a democracy. The Americans dismantled the government and inserted the antiwar
clause in the constitution because it was considered too dangerous not to do
so. Do you have any idea how Japan’s neighbors in Asia, most of whom have
been occupied by the Japanese army for shorter or longer periods, feel about
the Japanese? Just ask any Asian. It is the one issue they all agree on.

Complaining that the antiwar
clause was humiliating is like saying that murderers should not be jailed because
that would be humiliating. As for Hirohito, he could have easily been prosecuted
as a war criminal. He got off scot-free. Making him renounce his divinity was
part of bringing Japan into the 20th century. You will not find any rational
Japanese who will say that was not a positive and necessary step.


Joe Rodrigue,
New Haven


Get Off the Love Train
Enjoyed your 8/11 column in NYPress, save for the portion wherein you
tried to agree with The New York Times’ castigation of the BSA.
Being homosexual (which is voluntary) cannot be compared with being black, Asian
or Polish (which is predetermined). Rather, a homosexual’s rights are similar
to a smoker’s rights. If you choose to smoke, you may be prohibited from
doing so in certain places, facilities or work situations. You know that in
advance, and can decide to smoke (and give up going into those places) or not
to smoke (with corresponding access).


So it should be with homosexuality.
The Boy Scouts, the Army, your private club–whatever–should be able
to announce that no people who choose to be homosexual are allowed; an individual
makes the decision to be in the Army or not. Any group should be allowed to
establish its membership requirements provided they don’t discriminate
against naturally predetermined subgroups. But when the applicant’s voluntary
choices don’t conform with the group’s standards or stated requirements,
he or she has no “right” to be admitted. You can modify your choices
and conform, thereby earning admission. No group should be forced to accept
homosexuals (voluntary) or criminals (again, voluntary), etc., if its membership
criteria exclude such–but it should be required to accept women or blacks,
or any other biologically controlled subgroup.

Confusing the “rights”
of people and groups who elect to do things with those of people who
have no choice in what they are, is the big con of the gay community.
It seems very reasonable to not discriminate against minorities–until you
realize that in this instance, the minority has chosen to be a minority.

You were right to feel uncomfortable
agreeing with the Times.


David Messner,
Marina Del Rey, CA


Bull Penn
In your 8/18 column, you discuss Gov. George W. Bush’s win in the Ames
straw poll and the “tut-tutting” that followed. On the opposing side,
in the upcoming primary, I have to wonder what Bill Bradley’s chances will
be if Sen. Joe Biden and others are right about the Gore campaign. Biden and
others have stated, publicly, that people from the Gore campaign are holding
Democrats hostage in their endorsements for the Democratic presidential run.
It has also been alleged that Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan has been informed
that his plans for New York City’s Penn Station will not go through if
he endorses Bill Bradley. If this is true, it’s obscene that our senior
statesman can’t use his final months to see through this wonderful plan
for Penn Station. I also would not be surprised if Moynihan was deceived into
believing that if he supported Hillary Clinton, and invited her to his virginal
farm upstate, his plan for the station would go through.


Flora L. Ramonowski,


Nostril-Burning Bush
I always enjoy your articles, but I particularly appreciate your approach to
Gov. Bush’s presidential campaign. You seem to be the only journalist who
consistently recognizes the Governor’s personal and political skills. I’m
stunned that there isn’t wider acknowledgment of his achievements in Texas.
I personally think he’s the best governor we’ve had since John Connally.


Anyone who questions his
views only has to look at his existing record. He’s never attempted to
hide his feelings on important matters. However, while other candidates (from
all the parties) often come across as narrowminded zealots, Bush possibly realizes
that a president is more important for his leadership than for his opinions.
I think we’re all a little tired of politicians standing on a stump and
either telling us what we should believe or telling us what they think we want
to hear.

I wish someone would take
note of Al Gore’s audacity in declaring that Bush doesn’t have enough
experience in foreign affairs. How much experience did Clinton have when he
ran for the nation’s top office? (Of course, he managed to bungle all of
his international forays. Despite the claims of success for the recent disaster
in Bosnia, the only military victory this administration can claim occurred
in Waco, TX, during the first term.)


Ernie Kirkham,
College Station, TX


Learning From Loss
sorry to see Amy Sohn go, but I knew that someday she’d hit the big time
and leave us. Perhaps it’s for the best. Anyway, she seems to have finally
gotten herself into a functional relationship, which can only hurt the column.
But we love Amy, so what’s good for her is what’s good for us. Congrats!


C. Lizzner,


Girl Eighty-Six
When someone told me the
whiny bitch who writes for NYPress was leaving, I immediately assumed
it was Russ Smith. Too bad it’s actually Amy Sohn. Whose menstrual flow
will I read about now? Whose fart-lighting antics will I follow? This is the
saddest day in New York journalism since Pete Hamill gave up the sauce.


Alan Roberts,


The Portly Gentlemen Of

fat bastards


How could you let her go?
How? Goddammit!

What the fuck do I read
now? Jonathan Ames has had Mangina on the brain for the past year. Jim Knipfel
has about 11 days left before he spontaneously combusts and transmogrifies into
a hot, blue gas. What do I have left? Sanchez’s ass-fetish? MUGGER’s
“Diary of a Peckish Tribecan”?


No! I need awkward metaphors
for lubricated vaginal canals!

Give me awkward metaphors
for lubricated vaginal canals!


I don’t care how much
money she got. Top it! Chain her to the floor with some gynocentric porn and
a laptop that dispenses a pellet of food every hundred words typed! Or…

…every third awkward metaphor
for lubricated vaginal canals!

What am I supposed to do,
buy Run Catch Kiss? I accidentally bought Go Dog Go! and by the
time I realized my mistake I was engrossed.

Was it the hate mail? Can
someone please tell her that hate mail is like a Nielsen rating? For every irate
letter you receive, your column is read by 1000 other people who don’t
have the free time to write shit like this.

Whatever. I either get one
awkward metaphor for lubricated vaginal canals per week, or I take my free show
listings elsewhere.

I thank you in advance.


Bob Powers,


Iron Filing
am an ardent supporter of a free press, but if someone placed a gun to my head
and forced me to choose, the one thing I would ban is the use of the word “capitalism”
by film critics. Armond White’s favorite children’s movie did poorly
in theaters, so he asserts that capitalism has created a nation of “robotic
consumers” incapable of appreciating a beautiful film (“Film,”
8/18). How tiresome. Surely some of his other recent favorites have been hits;
would that invalidate his argument? What if Iron Giant does well on video?
Did Mr. White consider the possibility that Iron Giant was poorly promoted?
I’m as faithful an absorber of Hollywood’s “corporate hard-sell”
as the next moron. Last week I saw about two commercials for Iron Giant and
about two hundred commercials for The Thomas Crown Affair. Sure, I was
nauseated when the Thomas Crown Affair ad, quoting some critic, bragged,
“the most sizzling performances of the decade!” Perhaps I’m not
as passive as the robot I’m supposed to be.


That same sickening feeling
returned reading Mr. White’s opening line: “The kids are not all right.”
Because they didn’t see a movie? The use of the word “corporate”
as a pejorative adjective modifier to “hard-sell” also triggers the
absurdity reflex. How is this different from the sole proprietorship hard-sell
or the limited partnership hard-sell? What about the nonprofit hard-sell? Ever
watch PBS during pledge week? The difference is that Mr. White knows that keywords
like “capitalism” and “corporate” in his text are analogous
to cinematic fireballs and fruit carts for his robotic audience–those who
don’t stop to think about the great films we couldn’t see if not for
capitalism. Like Dr. Pavlov, Armond White rings his paranoid-leftist bell and
expects us all to salivate.

Save your spit, and rent
Iron Giant for the kids.


David Nadle,