Mugger: Art Cooper Gets Worried

GQ editor Art Cooper’s an amiable fellow who, unlike many of his colleagues in Manhattan’s parochial media cellar, is thick-skinned when his magazine is criticized. So, I wonder, did Art have an extra helping of Wheaties on the morning of Jan. 29? Later that night, as reported by the New York Post’s Keith Kelly, Cooper gave an antiwar speech at the Waldorf, where he was honored for being inducted into the Hall of Fame of the American Society of Magazine Editors. Maybe Cooper was embarrassed at the folly of such an award, and that explains his confusing statement.

Saying he was "deathly afraid" that President Bush is "all too eager" to wage war against Iraq, Cooper was greeted by "light" applause. One fellow editor told Kelly he thought Mr. GQ’s international policy thoughts were a "little off the beam."

And a little bit hypocritical, I think. Cooper said: "I am troubled by the prospect of launching a war against Iraq. We have sent such intrepid war correspondents as Michael Kelly, Bob Drury, Guy Lawson and Chris Whitcomb into hot zones, and I do not wish to send them back." That’s hard to believe on a couple of counts. Obviously, Cooper worries about his writers’ safety, but, for example, Kelly’s Gulf War reportage was not only a boost to his career, but also a boon to GQ, a welcome respite from celebrity profiles and tips about trimming nose hair and finding an excellent, super-size condom.

No one forces a reporter into a war-ravaged country: Those who go are not only willing but also energized by the prospect of possibly covering the story of their careers. It takes guts to enter a combat zone and there aren’t many journalists who make that choice. But for a small number, filing stories from a nation under siege is their beat, their preferred assignment; it’s just a lot more perilous than following presidential candidates, a la Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, around the United States for a year.

And let’s be honest: What serious war correspondent doesn’t dream of attaining the fame and influence of legends like Edward R. Murrow and David Halberstam?

Joe Strupp, writing in the Feb. 4 Editor & Publisher, spoke to a number of reporters who are gearing up for the expected war. New York Timesman Ian Fisher, reached in Baghdad (far from the reaches of Howell Raines), said: "It is a huge opportunity, but a completely terrifying prospect. A huge topic here is whether to be here or not when the fighting starts. I think most are ambitious and news-hungry for it." The Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran agreed: "It is of manifest importance to be here. Many people are intent on staying for the duration."

And despite Cooper’s trepidation, you can bet that his competitive streak will be on maximum-level, pushing for the most riveting war reportage a monthly magazine normally devoted to the most trivial of subjects can muster.

Make Mary Jane Legal

A Feb. 4 New York Times editorial titled "Misguided Marijuana War," was right on the mark. Protesting the nonsensical conviction of Californian Ed Rosenthal, a man who grows pot for medical patients, the Times not only pointed out that this virtuous man could receive a minimum of five years in the hoosegow, but also the White House’s dumb policy on drugs.

The paper said: "The Bush administration’s war on medical marijuana is not only misguided but mean-spirited. Doctors have long recognized marijuana’s value in reducing pain and aiding in the treatment of cancer and AIDS, among other diseases... [G]iven the lack of success of the war on drugs in recent years, there must be better places to direct law enforcement resources."

Less skillful on the same subject was The Baltimore Sun’s Feb. 9 editorial, unimaginatively titled "Reefer Madness." Naturally, it’s all John Ashcroft’s fault, as if he made unilateral (to use a word that’s been horribly abused by opponents of toppling Saddam Hussein) decisions without consent of President Bush’s administration.

The Sun said: "[M]ost Americans have a lot more compassion and a lot more sense than Mr. Ashcroft. He’s so trapped in the 70s with his anti-pot paranoia he doesn’t realize the nation and even the drug culture have passed him by." Ashcroft and his boss are completely wrong about this issue, but the Sun’s cowardly use of the Attorney General as an all-purpose punching bag nearly nullifies its opinion. And why the Sun writer singled out the 1970s as a period of "anti-pot paranoia" is mystifying: When has any president, in any decade, demonstrated anything but reflexive contempt for even a meaningful discussion about antiquated drug laws?

It’s doubtful the Times would ever endorse the legalization of marijuana–too risky for the stuffed shirts in midtown–but this was a good start. The issue of using pot for medicinal purposes is one that should’ve been put to rest 20 years ago. You’d think the government, as this editorial says, would direct its law enforcement bureaucracy, especially in the new world of terrorist threats, to skip petty drug violations. Rosenthal is not a threat to society; in fact, he’s a hero to terminal patients.

In 1982, when my mother was dying from brain cancer and enduring horrific chemotherapy and radiation treatments, she asked if I’d buy her an ounce of marijuana and slip it to her on the sly. Mind you, this was a woman in her early 60s who’d never used the drug before–and certainly discouraged my own use of it as a teenager–but just wanted some relief from the pain. As it turned out, she puffed up several times and found the mild drug distracted from her ability to concentrate, so she relied on caffeine instead.

Why marijuana remains illegal is a mystery I haven’t been able to unravel for more than 30 years. It’s less dangerous than alcohol, for starters, and if available at pharmacies would bring in enormous revenue for the government (just like gambling) and snuff out the black market. In addition, the potency of the pot could be controlled, so users would know exactly the strength of a joint and be assured that no angel dust had been mixed in with the batch. It’s a win-win proposition, but unfortunately no president or Congress has had the vision, or guts, to take action on an issue that would initially rile large voter segments (both on the left and right), but would fade within a year of the legislation’s passage.

Just as prostitution should be legal, but no public servant will even touch that one, prohibition of a "soft drug" like marijuana (last time I checked, valium was legal) makes no sense. Wouldn’t it be amazing to see some "maverick" senator like John McCain embrace this cause, rather than the pointless campaign finance "reform," a measure that 95% of American citizens couldn’t care less about?

MSNBC’s Opportunity

Perhaps it’s because he works for the Boston Herald that Howie Carr is one of the most underappreciated columnists in the country. That’s a shame, since Carr never fails to deliver the goods on the crumbling Kennedy political dynasty.

His Feb. 7 Herald piece was an uncommon example of sound thought. Carr wrote:

"At grave national moments like this, why does it always have to be such an embarrassment to be from Massachusetts? How can Ted Kennedy be wrong about so much? At least Sen. John ‘Liveshot’ Kerry had the good sense to flip-flop back to being pro-war, sort of, more or less, as long as the pro-Powell polling numbers hold up.

"But Ted? Let’s go straight to the videotape: ‘Well I think it’s the uh the American people that uh I’m-a most uh uh ca-care about and concerned about.’ Ted Kennedy stands four-square–with Robert Byrd. The Hero of Chappaquiddick and the Grand Kleagle, linking arms with Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi. They shall overcome."

You could argue that it’s dirty pool when Carr quotes Kennedy’s inarticulate comments verbatim, but that’s nothing compared to the ridicule of President Bush’s similar inability to speak in perfect prose when not delivering a Michael Gerson-penned speech. Do you think Slate’s Jacob Weisberg, whose catalog of "Bushisms" has earned him some extra spending money, would ever consider collecting "Kennedyisms?" Of course not, even though those paperbacks would yield a slew of best-sellers.

Carr continues: "More and more, Ted sounds like his old man, circa 1939, when he was sending cables to FDR from London counseling appeasement of Adolf Hitler, complimenting Neville Chamberlain on the bang-up job he was doing selling out the Czechs."

Now that MSNBC has hired blowhard Jesse Ventura, bumping the ratings-deprived Chris Matthews to the 7 p.m. time slot, a wise move by the cable station–desperate in its too-little, too-late attempt to compete with Fox News–would be to pit Carr against, say Donna Brazile at 8 o’clock each weeknight. In the meantime, you can contact the Kennedy nemesis at howiecarr.org.

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:MUG1988@aol.com)