Putting the Def in Anti-Defamation Putting the Def ...
Nick Bilton's depiction ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) crosses the line and is in extremely poor taste. The art does little to add to Mr. Rushkoff's piece; rather it invokes another image?that of Jews participating in terrorism. Palestinian suicide terrorists have employed the tactic of dressing as Orthodox Jews to gain access to public spaces in order to "maximize" the number of civilian casualties they can inflict. Anyone taking a passing glance at this issue of the Press could think this was a story about Jewish suicide bombers. Editors have a responsibility to ensure the public is not misled.
Joel J. Levy, Regional Office Director, Anti-Defamation League
Hitler's Dead?!?
Not only are you financing your "newspaper" with what looks like about 50 percent prostitution ads, but you have hit new lows with the current front page ("Suicide Jews," 6/18). I'm sure Hitler is smiling in his grave. Where did you find this anti-Semite "half-Jew" to write such a misinformed and ignorant scathing article about current Jewry? The photo on the front page rivals anything put out by the Third Reich. It is the most scathing, hateful depiction and stereotyping of a Jew I have ever seen on any publication openly distributed in the U.S.
Gary Glanzman, Manhattan
Ames in Flames?
Mark Ames' review of Jacob Sullum's Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use ("Books," 6/18) only succeeds in challenging one point of Sullum's book (which I edited)?and by accident: that drug use doesn't impair performance. Mr. Sullum's premise in Saying Yes is simple: People who support the war on drugs start with the belief that drug use is inherently wrong. Saying Yes debunks this notion, arguing that when used with discretion, illegal drugs are no more or less harmful than any other recreational substance. "Reformers will make little progress," reads a typical line from the dust jacket, "as long as they agree with the defenders of the status quo that drug use is always wrong." In accusing Sullum of "engaging drug war supporters on their own terms," Ames misses the point of the book?which it looks as though he didn't fully read.
Consider the following statement from his review: "It is telling that throughout the book Sullum never admits he uses drugs?a glaring omission. Either that means he has but is afraid that he'll alienate his imaginary audience of Christian loonies, or worse, he's never taken drugs and therefore is a lunatic himself." Sullum writes on page six of Saying Yes: "Another source of information about drug use has been my own experience with illicit intoxicants, which is modest but instructive. In addition to marijuana, I've sampled psychedelics, cocaine, opioids, and tranquilizers."
Believing that Sullum is too much of a rationalist, Ames writes: "He believes so deeply in the power of reason that, as his book jacket proudly declares, he was once even the editor of Reason." What the jacket actually says, in a three-sentence bio sketch, is that Mr. Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. I'll extend this personal offer: If any reader of Saying Yes, with a retail receipt, can argue by example any of the criticisms in Ames' review, I will personally refund his or her money. Which, incidentally, is $25.95, not $29.95 as the review states.
Mitch Horowitz, Executive Editor, Tarcher/Penguin, Manhattan
Mark Ames replies: Yes, I did miss the two-sentence reference to Sullum's own drug "use." It was tucked away in the second of three introductions that talked about methodology and the problems of relying on surveys. It's too bad I missed it, because it bolsters my case and would have made for good comedy. After saying he'd "sampled" drugs (What does "sampling" mean? Did he just take bite-size doses?), he continues, "I see the appeal of each, but I did not find any of them overwhelmingly attractive..." In other words, he didn't really like them. This proves that he's both pandering to the mainstream and a fucking lunatic. Or just a liar. Most likely all three. I thought he'd make his drug confession in the last chapter, since he argues in a gradation starting with alcohol all the way to heroin. In the last chapter he tells an anecdote about his daughter asking about drugs, then goes into what parents should tell their kids about drug use. It's a bizarrely evasive bit in which he never mentions his own drug use and makes a weird rationalist-ad-absurdum argument that because his daughter takes cough medicine she's a druggie. He's afraid, again, of simply telling his readers, "Lock the door when you get high!" The fact remains that Sullum doesn't bring up his personal drug experiences throughout the body of the book. This is both damning and weird.
Mishka: In His Own Write
I just want to reiterate something I've said again and again since leaving Luxx: Most of the time, working with rock bands and rock fans was just unmitigated fun ("Music," 6/11). I was always amazed by the maturity and unselfishness routinely displayed by bands. They were almost always happy to play by my tight-ass rules, share equipment with other bands and were generally very grateful at the end of the night, even if I only had 13 bucks to give 'em. I got hugs from a lot of chicks, some dudes, even a few moms. And rock people, especially in New York, are incredibly generous when it comes to taking care of their own, as we've seen with big benefits for Damien Paris' legal expenses, Robert Lund's hernia and Papa Crazee's recent ill fortune (God bless him). The experiences that appear in my profile make for fun reading, but they were hardly the norm. Yeah, there were a few bad eggs but, you know, don't let one monkey stop the show.
Mishka Shubaly, Brooklyn
The Divine She-male
I noticed toward the end of Mr. Rushkoff's extremely revealing and fascinating article ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) that he referred to the alleged Jewish monotheistic "God" as "she" in order to illustrate the point that not knowing the nature of God is part of Judaism. However, a little thought will show that gender is an irrelevant issue.
In the Bible when Moses asks God "who" or "what" is the nature of the transcendent being, God replies, "I am that I am." He did not say, "I am who I am." Now, unless God is really Popeye, the expression "I am that I am" is the ultimate avoidance of gender or sex. God won't even admit to being quasi-human.
This is regardless of the fact that in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim creation mythology, God is always represented as having created man "in his own image." Making something in one's own image asexually is probably an extremely subjective task and if you're God, who's gonna judge your work?
So I think Rushkoff and all the rest of the people who claim a possible gender or sex for God should think about it the next time they use such anthropomorphic terminology.
Martin Braun, Manhattan
Somebody Needs a Hug
Russ Smith: It's wonderful that you had and appreciated those years with your father (MUGGER, 6/18). Too many kids are not fortunate enough to have a father that cares for and loves them no matter what the situation. At times I catch myself feeling sorry for myself as my father left my mother and I when I was only four months old. It really takes a father and a mother doesn't it? Thanks for passing your story on to others.
Bill Baggett, Arrington, TN
Another Coal-Black Heart Warmed
RUSSSMITH: I really appreciated your article about your father (MUGGER, 6/18). My father was raised during the Depression too, and he shared many of the same traits as your father. The quote you mentioned, "Democrats eat fried rats," reminded me of a very similar one from my childhood. It went, "Fried rats and pickled cats are good enough for Democrats." I hadn't thought of it in years. My father was also a Republican, as am I, even though my mother was a Democrat as is my wife. Again, thanks for the good read.
Paul Vandivort, Lakewood, CA
Meeting Half-Way
I can understand Mr. Rushkoff's vision of Judaism stripped of its supposed race obsession ("Suicide Jews," 6/18). But Judaism without God? Without God, Jewish social activism becomes just another one of the idols Mr. Rushkoff claims to deplore. As for the author's belief that thinking adults reject an animal-blood guzzling God: cheap shot. Temple worship and the accompanying blood sluices died out 2000 years ago. Better an ethnocentric Jewish believer with a real sense of the world than a "progressive" atheist blabbering on about the "evil" George Bush.
James Thorner, Tampa
Leibelous
What drivel! Douglas Rushkoff goes on and on and says nothing ("Suicide Jews," 6/18). He is one of those self-hating Jews who really doesn't have a clue. It would be far more appropriate if you had a writer who had something important to say and not just the garbage spouted by Rushkoff.
Phil Leibel, Bellmore, NY
The Marshall Plan
MUGGER: Goodbye, already. I only read you because I am intrigued by your hate mail. You're a sycophantic far-right-wing fascist and your latest installment proves it yet again.
1. Freedom means I don't have to worship your flag, your god or your version of capitalism. Not the other way around.
2. Liberty is far more important than democracy, and the erosion of human rights from your god-loving, war-happy, draft-evading, big-oil-man-dry-drunk president will soon become apparent as the occupation of Iraq drones on.
Marshall B. Johnson, Manhattan
Best Dead Subway Poet
The Matthew Paris piece on Richard Bartee ("New York City," 6/11) reminded me so much of my own encounters with Bartee. I only met him twice; both were times I was in the dumps and he lifted me out of them. First in 1973 and again in 1977, Bartee gave me a lift with his poetry and art.
I still have the greeting card he gave me the first time we met. The cover says, "A Picture of next Savior of Mankind." Open it up and there's no writing, just a small mirror staring back at you. Then, in 1977, he gave me some poetry that I also still have. Though I haven't seen him in more than 25 years, he will be missed.
William Wickham, Brooklyn
One Love
I'm sure this note will disappoint Douglas Rushkoff if he enjoys riling Jews and having new apertures torn in his body?I thoroughly enjoyed his article ("Suicide Jews," 6/18) and agreed with most of it.
I claim as much right as anybody else to decide whether or not I'm Jewish. (Others may not agree, but like Rushkoff, I question their motives.) What "Jewish" means, however, remains a puzzle. Is it a religion? Clearly, that's not enough. A nationality? Certainly not?I feel no loyalty to Israel and a great deal to the Constitution of the United States. A tribe? We have not lived tribally for thousands of years. A tradition? But how much of that survives? An ethnicity? Haven't we lost that with assimilation, and if so, what remains?
There does not appear to be any useful meaning of the word "race" in such discussions?we are all one human race, and further subdivisions are not racial, or else they constitute subjective racism.
John Yohalem, Manhattan
The "J" Is for "Jesus"
Poor J.R. Taylor! He despises the New York burlesque scene ("B-Listers," 6/4) yet he still drags himself to show after show, even spending three (!) days at the recent First Annual NY Burlesque Festival, and why? Obviously not for himself, for he clearly derives no pleasure from watching girls take it off. No, he obviously does it for us, so he can tell us how pathetic the whole scene is. Yes, he suffers, and then we get to suffer by reading his adolescent rantings. What's the matter? Still angry the cute girls wouldn't date you in high school?
If you're going to write a critique, at least have the balls to name names. Who is "reliably pathetic"? The Pontani Sisters? Bunny Love? Bambi? Bonnie Dunn? Dirty Martini? Tell us who is pathetic, and why. I dare you.
Know Your Lord
Mr. Rushkoff rightly complains about the waste of valuable resources devoted to the study of Jewish demographics in a futile attempt to stop the Jews' abandonment of Judaism ("Suicide Jews," 6/18). He also whines insufferably that his brand of Judaism is not given the respect and voice it deserves, and that this closed-mindedness vitiates the process of winning back Jews who have abandoned Judaism.
I can't decide if Mr. Rushkoff is displaying ignorance or speciousness. Doesn't he know that Orthodox Judaism is thriving? His brand of Judaism, in which the Torah was not written by God and therefore the Exodus from Egypt may not have happened after all and Jews are free to eat pork and work on the Sabbath etc., has been an absolute disaster. Those Jews who believe it was written by God and follow every word of it are highly successful in raising committed, Orthodox families.
Mr. Rushkoff conveniently ignores the great success of modern Orthodoxy, for it stares him in the face and mocks everything he believes in. Somehow, these backward "fundamentalists" who believe the Torah is the actual word of God and live by its precepts have become professionals and live in thriving neighborhoods like New Rochelle and Flatbush.
Cut the crap, Mr. Rushkoff, and face an uncomfortable truth. If you want to lead a just, moral life, you will be a good person, beloved by God. But if the Torah is just some wise tome written 3000 years ago, don't be surprised that non-Orthodox institutional Judaism will die, or that Jews don't want to hear what you have to say, for you are truly the problem.
Ari Weitzner, Manhattan