By Keegan Hamilton
By Albert Samaha
By Village Voice staff
By Tessa Stuart
By Albert Samaha
By Steve Weinstein
By Devon Maloney
By Tessa Stuart
Letter Of The Week
Re Richard Goldstein's "Generation Nix" [Press Clips, July 7-13]: As a 21-year-old college student who devours newspapers on a daily basis, I found Goldstein's article to be especially interesting. I routinely avoid watching TV news, as I find it to be too superficialthe product of a society more obsessed with soundbites and one-liners than substantive information. However, I confess that I often like to watch >The Daily Show because it reveals the lighthearted side of the world's unrelenting flow of depressing news. The show really makes political issues come to life, thereby engaging young voters who are put off by the older, stodgier networks. Young people are starting to take comedy more seriously. And anything that reverses the political apathy among younger voters is a good thing for American democracy.
Coates writes, "Propaganda is still propaganda. Thus anyone voting because they saw Fahrenheit 9/11 shall hence be forever disenfranchised." Propaganda, per Merriam-Webster, is "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause."
Essentially, this is what most communication is about. Propaganda only crosses ethical lines when what is spread are allegations that are not facts. Moore is not the "leftie Limbaugh." He may arrange the facts as he chooseswhy not? However, he is careful to stick to facts. Writers should not cast aspersions on his work unless they can cite factual errors in it.
Russell de Grove
Show Me the Money Reform
When I ran for mayor in the 2001 Democratic primary, despite qualifying for the ballot under New York's difficult Election Law and the debates sponsored by the New York City Campaign Finance Law, Reverend Al Sharpton barred me from participation in his Martin Luther King Day forum for Democratic mayoral contestants and later claimed in his book that there were only four candidates, omitting me. I complained to Wayne Barrett, who was present at the forum, but he agreed with Sharpton, complaining that I, a retired state auditor of city programs and former tax compliance agent, had no right to run.
It is gratifying that Barrett now wishes to reform the Campaign Finance Law. He effectively lays out the problems, noting on one hand Council Speaker Gifford Miller, "whose comparatively paltry $2.5 million campaign committee is a magnet for every inside player in town," and on the other hand Mayor Bloomberg, who according to Barrett "won in 2001 by spending $73 million of his own billions outside the system."
Barrett offers no solution, although he looks favorably on Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo's "proposal to set a $250 limit on contributions for all those doing business with the city." Cardozo's recommendation falls far short of proposals contained in the 1989 report of the Commission on Government Integrity, headed by former Fordham Law School dean John Feerick. The Feerick Commission proposed prohibiting all campaign contributions for those doing business with the city. This was an essential part of my campaign for mayor and of the testimony I have submitted before several New York Charter Commissions. Dean Feerick also recommended, and I seconded, barring no-bid contracts. Actually, if most of the contracting out was done by the civil serviceas current Public Advocate and former parks department commissioner Betsy Gotbaum inadvertently discovered could be done at much lower cost or through sealed bids, there would be far less money around to contribute to political candidates.
As for dealing with the "problem" of rich candidates spending their own money, I have long suggested that an enhanced voter guide combined with large amounts of interactive cable TVwhich, incidentally, works well in Bostoncould provide the electorate with all the information it needs to make a rational choice. If employed in New York City, it would place the winner of the Democratic primary on an equal plane with Mike Bloomberg in next year's general election. I tried to get this message out in 2001; however, this type of campaign finance reform had an apparent flaw to Wayne Barrett because it might have put me on the same level as his favorite, Mark Green, and in the previous mayoral race, Sal Albanese with Barrett's 1997 choice, Ruth Messinger.
Wayne Barrett replies: George is one of those unique New York gadflies who frequently knows more about the history of our politics than those of us who cover it. I doubt I ever had precisely the conversation with him that he cites in this letter. But I know he has long been dismayed that I thought people like Ruth Messinger or Mark Green might be more qualified to be mayor than him. What was I thinking?
Re Ta-Nehisi Coates's "Mushmouth Reconsidered" [July 14-20]:
Coates appears to be another apologist for the dysfunction that has infected our collective community. The pathology of gangsterism that permeates the youth culture must and should be addressed, even if Cosby may not be the most qualified person to take on this charge. Nevertheless, to put our heads in the sand, and dismiss Coz as just another old fool, is a major mistake.
We just continue to allow white America to define us as anti-intellectual, gangsta-playas, niggas, bitches and 'hos. And any black who dares to protest this assessment of us, and our internalization of this definition, is considered a sellout.
Collins's words are damaging. There is a clear distinction in the publishing world between legitimate agents and those who practice illegally, but he purposely blurs the line for the sake of sneakiness. The historical bits were interesting; too bad the article fell apart in matters of clarity.
Los Angeles, California
Paul Collins replies: My point is that intellectual-property laws made agents vital mediators between author and publisher, while the sheer volume of unsolicited submissions has also made them the prime movers in the shaping and selection of our literature. This role has been largely relinquished to them by publishers. This is not a criticism, but a fact.
Publishing is a subjective industry pursuing objective profits, generating an inevitable mass of what-if rejections. This is neither particularly blameworthy nor avoidable. But it makes Deering and other fee-based cons all the more appalling, as they use this ambiguity to prey upon the rejected. If you think I conflated her with legitimate agents, then I can only conclude thatlike Deering herselfyou didn't bother to read what was in front of you.
Chisun Lee's "Bashing Back at Bush's Anti-Gay Crusade" [villagevoice.com, July 13] refers to people who oppose gay marriage as being unprincipled. Why is one unprincipled for having that opinion? Is one unprincipled for having an opinion that differs from Lee's beliefs? Am I unprincipled because I oppose the position of NAMBLA regarding adult males having sex with children? Whatever happened to discourse that allows discussion and differences of opinion? Maybe political correctness now censors all opinions and even facts that are not in accord with the liberal agenda.
Personally I don't object to gays getting married. But I understand why others differ from me, and do not denigrate them for not having the same beliefs that I have.
More to Fear
Ridgeway's preemptive-conspiracy theory ignores a much more likely scenario: an actual terrorist attack this November. Considering Al Qaeda has already succeeded with this tactic in Spain, it is reasonable to believe that they might try the same thing in the United States. It is unfortunate that Ridgeway can only wring his hands about potential dirty tricks while there is a legitimate threat to this nation. This attitude mimics the 1990s belief that terrorism is insignificant and only its manipulation matters, an outlook which led us to ignore bin Laden for far too long. We have more to fear than fear itself; instead we should worry about another Al Qaeda offensive, and the possibility that it might bring us four more years of Bush's misrule.
In his On column [July 21-27], John Powers wrote that Texas senator John Cornyn compared same-sex marriage to a person marrying a box turtle. The text was included in a speech his staff prepared, but the senator skipped that part in his live comments.