Letters to The Rittenhouse Review

2003-09-29T06:36:00.000-07:00

RULER

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: M.B.
Date: September 28, 2003

“Cardinalatial.”

You rule!

Up until a couple of minutes ago, I didn’t know such a word existed!

M.B.
New York

2003-08-20T15:50:00.000-07:00

SWISS ON YOUR CHEESESTEAK?

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Michael Villers
Date: August 19, 2003

Thanks for printing the end-of-article corrections regarding the meaning of the phrase “Whiz wit’” and how many kinds of cheeses are available at Pat’s (and Geno’s, for that matter).

But the most important “true fact” missing from reports in this more-full-of-holes-than-the-cheese-in-question attempt to undermine Sen. John F. Kerry is that Swiss cheese as an option for cheesesteaks is available at virtually any deli or corner grocery store with a grill anywhere in Philadelphia.

Pat’s and Geno’s are conveyor-belt operations designed to get through the post-bar-closing crowds as quickly as possible, so limited choices are the order of the day. But anywhere else, all you gotta’ do is ask.

And anyway, when did it become an oddity to eat Swiss cheese with beef?

Michael Villers
Philadelphia

2003-08-20T11:52:00.000-07:00

ON DON RUSSELL & CHEESESTEAK-GATE

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Greg Mack
Date: August 19, 2003

I’m a Philadelphian too, and like you, I haven’t been to Pat’s or Geno’s in years, save for with the occasional client from out of town who wants to go there and doesn’t get the hint when I try to talk him out of it for an hour. [See “Cheesesteak-gate,” at The Rittenhouse Review, August 18.]

The worst part of this whole deal is the Don Russell thing. Does this idiot actually get paid?

If he’s not making a fool of himself (and the rest of Philadelphia) writing about the cheesesteak thing, he seems to be the reporter the Philadelphia Daily News assigns to do those stupid articles where he rips the city that a Philly team in playing in the playoffs, i.e. “Yeah, so the Buccaneers kicked the Eagles’ ass. At least we don’t live down there with all those mosquitos and blue hairs.” You know, stupid stuff like that.

I do like your blog, though. We don’t agree on much – if anything -- politically but I like the Philly angle and you’re a hell of a writer even though we disagree.

I agree with you that White Dog is a great restaurant. Among other things, I like it because there’s never a line for the “Republicans” bathroom.

Greg Mack
Philadelphia

2003-08-15T08:22:00.000-07:00

THE WRECK OF THE HESPERUS, OR,
THROUGH A KNOT-HOLE BACKWARDS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Shawnee Kizzire
Date: August 3, 2003

Not only was I told I looked like the wreck of the Hesperus, I also was told I looked like I had been “dragged through a knot-hole backwards.”

How do these things get around?

My mother was from Minneapolis.

Shawnee Kizzire

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

That’s a new one on me. But based on the e-mail generated by my “Wreck of the Hesperus” post, I’m betting I’ll hear from dozens of readers whose mothers said the same thing.

2003-08-15T08:09:00.000-07:00

THE WRECK OF THE HESPERUS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Tracy MacShane
Date: August 4, 2003

From the antipodean side of the pond (New Zealand), I am pleased to announce that my mother says with regular monotony that I and various other benighted types look like the “Wreck of the Hesperus.” [See: “ Did Your Mother Say This?”, The Rittenhouse Review, July 30.]

She can even recite parts of the poem (along with that other classic, the “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”).

My (slightly tongue-in-cheek) theory is that our Irish grandparents were so traumatized by the sea journeys to their new countries that these poems became of particular resonance to them. My Irish grandmother arrived in New Zealand in the `40s. While the voyage wouldn’t have been as onerous as for those poor steerage folks of the 19th century, I’m sure it was no picnic, what with the memories of U-boats fresh in everyone’s minds.

Thank you for letting me know it isn’t only my family’s oddity!

Tracy MacShane
Wellington, New Zealand

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

“Oddity”? In our house, phrases like that one, and there were legion, passed for normality.

2003-08-14T12:23:00.000-07:00

PRIDE COMETH -- OR GOETH -- BEFORE THE FALL

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: S. Gale Dick sgdick@debevoise.com
Date: August 14, 2003

I like your blog and find your commentaries to be generally smarter and more interesting than the average blog.

But I sense a note of the self-aggrandizement that seems to be so irrestistable to bloggers.

Why would you brag about your language proficiency on line?

Why would you subtitle your blog “Philadelphia’s journal of politics, finance, ethics, and culture”?

Stay humble, my friend.

S. Gale Dick
New York

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

That’s all part of the fun, my friend. I’m sorry if you don’t get the joke.

2003-08-12T16:45:00.000-07:00

THE HEAD TELLER & THE COIN COUNTER

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: C.R.
Date: August 12, 2003

I have to tell you about my experience with the coin rule.

I once was employed as a teller in a now defunct bank in Philadelphia. A gentleman came in with two cloth bags filled with pennies. The head teller informed him that he would have to wrap all of the pennies and provided him with few hundred wrappers. Another requirement was that the depositor's account number had to be written on each wrapper.

The gentleman went over to the customer service waiting area and proceeded to wrap $122.50 worth of pennies!

He then returned to my window to make his deposit. The coin counter was located directly behind me on the rear counter. (You can see where this is going). The head teller then came to my window and began to break open all of the wrappers the gentleman had just wrapped, right in front of him!

I will never forget the look on his face. Despite my best efforts, I could not stop laughing, and ended up being reprimanded for laughing at the situation in front of the customer.

I still get a good laugh whenever I think about it.

C.R.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Is there a provision in Pennsylvania law for justifiable assault, because if the customer in question opted to beat the crap out of the head teller, I think he’d meet the hypothetical requirements.

2003-08-06T11:38:00.000-07:00

HEY! THANKS FOR THE LINK!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Jennifer Nicholson Graham
Date: August 6, 2003

I just came across The Rittenhouse Review and saw a recent post -- “Fawning Over Coulter” -- in which you linked to my essay in the Philadelphia Daily News on Ann Coulter, “What Would Ann Coulter Eat?”

Thank you so much! Your site is wonderful -- both its design and content -- and I was flattered for the mention.

Warmest regards,
Jennifer Nicholson Graham
Philadelphia Daily News

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Thank you, Ms. Graham, for your kind remarks. They are much appreciated.

I’m grateful, as well, that your colleague, Beth Gillin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who on the ~~sane~~ same day published a shockingly fawning profile of the aforementioned Coulter, “Coulter, Sweetly Disembowling the Left Wing,” is a good sport and sent to me similarly positive comments that I cannot, for reasons I someday hope will become clear, cannot be republished here at this time.

2003-07-18T05:56:00.000-07:00

48 HOURS LATER . . .

To: The Poor Man, Body and Soul, and The Rittenhouse Review
From: Arne Adolfsen [adolfsen@earthlink.net ]
Date: July 16, 2003

You wrote, in response to J. Capazzola [sic]’s riff on Norwegians (and by extension my) personal hygiene, this:

“I’m sorry, but the Norwegians may know what they are doing on this one. Listen: Norway’s a cold place. How cold? I don’t know, but pretty fucking cold, I can tell you that much. And where there’s cold weather, you can bet there’ gonna be polar bears.”

And Mr. Capazzola [sic] labelled [sic] you some kind of jeeenyus (TM) for that comment. (Mr. Capazzola’s [sic] wide-eyed-with-astonishment-betcha-didn’t-know-this comment about Scandinavians having founded the city of Kiev -- this after his self-congratulatory comment that he’s researched the history of the Scandinavian countries, and even looked into their languages, and really, really, really wants to travel there some day. (I’ll note here only that he hasn’t deigned to answer my email that the Swedes (mostly) who founded both the Russian and Ukrainian states, and founded Kiev, which he found so astonishing that he had to write about it, and Novgorod and who knows how many other Russian and Ukrainian cities, referred to themselves in their own language as the “Rus[.]” Gosh, where did the word “Russia” come from? Let’s ask Jim! He’ll tell us based on some over-elaborated and -- for non-Philadelphians -- terminally skippable post about some Philadelphia thing or other, along with fey semi-comments about his clinical depression and multiple fatal conditions. Jeesh! You’re the only person on earth with 1) clinical depression, and 2) one or more mortal diseases! I’ll have to alert my parents, a couple of my cousins, my lover, several co-workers, and probably lots of tourists I try to shove out of the way in Hollywood as I’m going to work.

Feh. I hate bloggers who just bounce idiotic crap around from site to site (“well, X said y, and here’s what I think about y”; oh, well, “X” said “y”, and here at “h” we say “y” is the Golden Standard and here’s what I think about what “X” said).

All AVERAGE (day and night, combined and averaged) temperatures are given in Fahrenheit measurements from www.worldclimate.com:

This is the average temperature, in Fahrenheit, for Oslo from 1816-1991

Jan: 24.3 Feb: 25.2 March:30.9 Apr: 39.9 May: 50.5 June: 58.8 July: 62.4 August: 59.7 Sept: 52.0 Oct: 42.4 Nov: 32.9 Dec: 26.8 Year: 42.1

And here’s polar-bear ridden Edinburgh between 1764 and 1960:

Jan: 37.2 Feb: 38.5 March: 40.5 Apr: 44.8 May: 49.8 June: 55.4 July: 58.5 August: 57.7 Sept: 53.8 Oct: 47.7 Nov: 41.5 Dec: 38.7 Year: 46.9

Oh, and from their igloos, fighting off polar bears and saber-tooth tigers with pitch-and-resin torches, not to mention fighting away those menacing mastodons, the unfortunate residents of Chicago have announced that their average temperatures between 1873 and 1988 were:

Jan: 24.8 Feb: 27.5 March: 36.7 Apr: 48.0 May: 58.8 June: 68.5 July: 74.1 August: 73.0 Sept: 66.0 Oct: 54.7 Nov: 41.0 Dec: 29.5 Year: 50.2

And those cave people bereft of heat and light in Paris! What can you do but sigh, shed a tear, and move on when confronted with the average temperatures for Paris from 1981-1990 figures:

Jan: 38.7 Feb: 38.7 March: 45.1 Apr: 49.5 May: 56.7 June: 61.7 July: 66.2 Aug: 65.7 Sept: 61.0 Oct: 54.5 Nov: 45.1 Dec: 41.4 Year: 52.2

And, gosh, those folks unfortunate enough to huddle in Budapest must be really miserable (or were from 1953 to 1990):

Jan: 29.1 Feb: 33.1 March: 41.7 Apr: 51.6 May: 60.6 June: 66.2 July: 69.6 Aug: 68.5 Sept: 61.5 Oct: 51.6 Nov: 40.6 Dec: 33.4 Year: 50.7

Hell’s-bells, you’d freeze in Oslo unless you were eaten by a polar bear first. You’d be SO MUCH warmer in Budapest, where I guess you’d be eaten by a Black Sea sturgeon thrown-off the track by one of Condoleeeeezzzzza (I can’t remember how many e’s or z’s) Rice’s warnings of WMD terr’rist combat units who’ve infiltrated/spread around the US. Oh, wait. She hasn’t any such announcement. Err, am I halucinnating [sic] that the Bush Jr. administration is acting responsibly?

>>Eeeooooweeeeeooooooweeeeeooooo<<

You will give up your brain for the next ten minutes.

>>Eeeooooweeeeeooooooweeeeeooooo<<

Ummm, where am I? Uhhhh...color me Pale Apricot to match my bedroom’s off-white walls according to Asscrack’s terr’rism alert color symbology. I can’t think of one of them (Bush Jr.’s cabinet folks) who I’d even consent to share a football setting for a picnic with. I think they’re all completely corrupt.

Still, total stupidity about the climate in Norway by self-proclaimed pundits is truly embarrassing and sheds -- in my opinion -- an EXTREMELY suspect light on ALL bloggers who have unthinkingly linked to this dunderheaded thepoorman post.

Arne Adolfsen
Los Angeles

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Sorry about that, readers. Mr. Adolfsen apparently really, really needed to get that out. He was up all night writing it.

2003-07-18T05:43:00.000-07:00

SLEEPING WITH NORWEGIANS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Arne Adolfsen [adolfsen@earthlink.net ]
Date: July 16, 2003

Better yet, did you know that the Vikings who settled in Russia and the Ukraine -- mostly Swedes; my Norwegian ancestors went south (Normandy), southwest (Scotland, England, Ireland) and west (Iceland -- actually, the first couple waves of Norwegian settlement of Iceland were made up largely of men of Norwegian origin/ancestry settled in Ireland along with their Irish Celtic wives, which explains the appearance of Irish names like Ciartan in Icelandic -- Kjartan) -- called themselves “Rus”? (What a convoluted sentence! But what an interesting factoid!)

And why don’t my Norwegian cousins change their underpants more often? Shudder. The two Norwegian nationals I’ve slept with in my adult career as the very model of a modern homosexual had clean shorts on (for part of the evening, anyway) as far as I could tell at the time. I guess I should have been more attentive. Maybe Norwegians changed their undies more often 20 years ago than they do now? (They did, didn’t they? Pretty please?)

By the way, I really love your blog. We have similar, but just different enough to make it interesting, takes on things.

Arne Adolfsen
Los Angeles

2003-07-15T08:35:00.000-07:00

THOSE CRAZY CICADAS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Melanie Mattson
Date: July 14, 2003

The cicada invasion was in 1987. I was in Washington then and still am, so I look forward to the return of the 17-year cicada next summer.

Actually, I’m not looking forward to it, as I found it quite dreadful on the last go-round.

I moved to Washington, got married in 1986 (that date is memorable), and now-ex-hubby and I were just getting ready to put our house on the market in April 1987.

I was actually walking to the subway to go downtown and see a client the morning they emerged. The ex and I had been up all night dealing with printer problems for my client presentation that morning. Having given up on thinking of sleep at about 5 a.m., he turned to painting window frames, and I helped until it was time to head downtown.

We watched them all emerge from the ground, which was eerie enough, and climb onto trees to dry and change color, which was past wierd, and then there was the sound!

Funny you should bring this up now. On my way out to the parking lot to get in the car yesterday, I was remembering horror and doing the math in my head to figure out when we were going to have to deal with it again. Next year. Maybe I’ll move to Ohio for the summer.

Melanie Mattson
Falls Church, Va.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

I forgot about the crawling out of the ground part. Fortunately I missed that aspect last time around. I wonder how people in earlier times interpreted that event!

2003-06-18T18:17:00.000-07:00

MORE ON DAVID FRUM

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Tom Benjamin
Date: June 13, 2003

Kevin Briand’s letter [Ed.: See “David Frum: Wayward Child,” below.] wondering how David Frum became David Frum struck a real chord for this Canadian.

Frum’s mother was a fine journalist with a wonderful presence. She was truly beloved.

Via this link you will find a CBC archive that includes many of her more memorable moments, including her interviews with Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, and Mordecai Richler.

I’m sure she’s spinning in her grave.

Tom Benjamin

2003-06-13T08:48:00.000-07:00

SUPPORT FROM A FELLOW BLOGGER

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: “L”
Date: June 12, 2003

Bravo, Jim!

I've been following your blog for quite a while now, but I'm quite new to blogging myself, and it was only a couple of days ago that I stumbled into this mess by accident (not involved myself; just wound up reading about it -- in that horrifically fascinated way that one can't help but stare at a car wreck).

Anyway, people who know your blog know better than to believe that kind of screed. In fact, reasonable people who don't know your blog still know better than to believe that kind of screed. I'll happily continue linking to you.

Best wishes,
“L” (Name withheld by request.)

2003-05-28T08:06:00.000-07:00

MORE ON MARRIED CLERGYMEN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Max
Date: May 21, 2003

You seem to know a good deal of the history, but this old Catholic Encyclopedia article may be instructive [See "Married Priests in Iceland," The Rittenhouse Review, May 20.]:

Finally, in 1123, at the First Lateran Council, an enactment was passed (confirmed more explicitly in the Second Lateran Council, can. vii) which, while not in itself very plainly worded, was held to pronounce the marriages contracted by subdeacons or ecclesiastics of any of the higher orders to be invalid (contracta quoque matrimonia ab hujusmodi personis disjungi…judicamus -- can. xxi).

This may be said to mark the victory of the cause of celibacy. Henceforth all conjugal relations on the part of the clergy in sacred orders were reduced in the eyes of canon law to mere concubinage. Neither can it be pretended that this legislation, backed, as it were, by the firm and clear pronouncements of the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215, and later by those of the Council of Trent, remained any longer a dead letter. Laxity among the clergy at certain periods and in certain localities must undoubtedly be admitted, but the principles of the canon law remained.

The only thing Lyndewode makes clear, quoted above, is that the English Church in the 15th century refused to recognize the existence of any such entity as the priest's "wife." It knew of nothing but concubinage and denied to these any legal right whatever or any claim upon the property of the partner of their guilt.

Basically, priests were breeding through the 17th century. The practice became increasingly scandalous -- and rare -- with time. Nonetheless, it remained common in rural areas, particularly those isolated from Rome. Legally, of course, there was no such thing as a priest's wife, but whether called a concubine or not, her sons often inherited the land/position of the father.

I wish I could think of a good book on the subject, but this was not my specialty when I studied such things. Le Roy Ladurie's book Montaillou gives a somewhat sensational (but entertaining) picture of village life in the late middle ages. It is based on the inquisition records of Jacques Pamiers, which are a fantastic source -- and some of them are on-line here.

You might also look into Natalie Zemon Davis and Carlo Ginzburg if you are interested in semi-anthropological accounts of pre-modern village life -- which is the context that clerical marriage needs to be viewed in, not councils in Rome.

Max

2003-05-28T08:05:00.000-07:00

DAVID FRUM: WAYWARD CHILD

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Kevin Briand
Date: May 20, 2003

After reading today's post about David Frum, I was reminded (again) of how far he falls short of the standards set by his mother. [See "David Frum: Swimming With the Fishes," The Rittenhouse Review, May 21.]

His mother, Barbara Frum, was one of the most respected and influential woman journalists that Canada ever had (though she was born in Niagara Falls, N.Y.).

To really appreciate just what an idiot he is, you need to realize that he didn't just crawl out of the woodwork. In fact, he had a highly respected, admired, and competent role model to facilitate his future career.

Those of us who can remember what a quality journalist she was are truly saddened and disgusted whenever we come across the latest contribution from her son (whom I'm increasingly convinced was adopted).

Information about Barbara Frum can be found at this CBC website.

Kevin Briand
Houston

2003-05-23T02:21:00.000-07:00

BUFFY: NEITHER SLUT NOR BIMBO

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Chris Lark
Date: May 22, 2003

Could you please elaborate more on your beef with "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"? [See "There Truly is a God," TRR, May 19.]

Was it actually worse than "Xena:Warrior Princess," "Sabrina The Teenage Witch," "La Femme Nikita," and "Charmed"?

Also how do you argue with this point I constantly hear from Buffy's female fans?: It gave young women a role model to identify themselves with on TV. Buffy was a true modern heroine who wasn't a slut or a bimbo.

Am I fan of Buffy? Not exactly. Will I take her over, oh, let's say Ally McBeal? Oh yeah.

One last question before I go, how come Joss Whedon and David E. Kelley get to make big TV shows and we don't?

Chris Lark

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

I don't know why you don't make "big TV shows," but the reason I don't is because I'm just too damned lazy.

2003-05-23T02:01:00.000-07:00

ABOUT THOSE ICELANDIC PRIESTS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Bruce Webb
Date: May 22, 2003

Although my graduate training was in medieval history, my particular emphasis was Britain before 1066, and so while I am not an expert on the subject of Icelandic priestly celibacy and marriage or cohabitation, I do have some background in this area. [See "Married Priests in Iceland," The Rittenhouse Review, May 20.]

First I would refer to you this article, which explains that Pope Alexander VI, elevated in 1490, was the father of the Borgias -- yes, those Borgias -- and openly secured riches and lucrative offices for his many children.

And while the Icelandic Bishop Jón Arason may have been ignorant of the finer points of the Second Lateran Council, presumably some of his near-contemporaries at the Vatican were at least vaguely aware of the strictures incumbent on priests.

Although Alexander VI was not typical for Roman Pontiffs he was fairly representative for the clergy at the time. The point you have missed, but one that is clear on first examination of the texts, is that clerical celibacy is not at all about sex, it is about marriage. And even more clear is that in medieval Europe marriage was not about sex, it was about legitimacy, which means inheritance.

The one constant of medieval history is the attempt by king and bishop alike to keep property from being permanently alienated from their control. Property rights that initially were granted in return for a specific service (whether war or preaching) were constantly being transformed into inheritable property. While on the whole this was a losing battle for kings, who gradually had their income base shifted from property to taxes, it largely was won by the Church.

Property that accrued to the church remained under its control. And while there are multiple examples of "nephews" of high clergy being granted lucrative clerical offices, the principle of clerical celibacy prevented large chunks of property being permanently alienated.

To your specific example, note that your quote was "priests commonly lived with women and had children." Now there is nothing in that that implies "marriage." And my reading leads me to conclude that priests openly cohabitating and procreating with women was rather the norm than the exception in Western Europe, particularly as you move down the income scale. And, generally, where property rights were not at risk, the Church really didn't care.

Bruce Webb
Everett, Wash.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Thank you for your interesting and informative letter.

As relates to the example of married or cohabitating Icelandic priests in the 16th century, as discussed in A Brief History of Iceland, by Gunnar Karlsson, I presumed, probably incorrectly as you imply, that the phase "priests commonly lived with women" implied marriage.

However, lacking access to Karlsson's text in the original Icelandic, I cannot offhandedly determine what the author actually wrote. I suppose I am filtering the English translation by Anna Yates through a decidedly 21st century view, keeping in mind that this is a book that runs to just 72 pages, implying a need for Yates to be brief and concise.

I think a definitive finding on this matter would require an investigation into the prevalence of cohabitation in Iceland during the period, among the clergy and the populace at large, but that is a topic for another day.

I must disagree, however, with your point that "clerical celibacy is not at all about sex, it is about marriage." This may have been true centuries ago, but I don't think this notion applies to the Church today. But that, too, is a topic for another day.

2003-05-23T00:35:00.000-07:00

BUFFY'S THE BEST!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Mark Gisleson
Date: May 20, 2003

I'll keep reading The Rittenhouse Review, but I'm sorry I gave in and started checking out TRR, per your cajoling.

Now that I know you didn't like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," I will always think less of you and your opinions. [See "There Truly is a God," TRR, May 19.]

In a one-on-one contest with Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), you'd have my vote (if I lived in Pennsylvania), but otherwise I have to question your decision-making process.

If you are saying that 99.99% of all TV is rot, that's one thing, but "Buffy" was clearly in the top 0.01%.

Let me stand in solidarity with my young blonde comrade, as you should as well: vampires, demons, Satan, Karl Rove, the GOP...What's the difference?

Mark Gisleson
St. Paul, Minn.

2003-05-23T00:19:00.000-07:00

COMMON PROBLEMS IN CATHOLICISM AND BUDDHISM

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Michael Siegel
Date: May 21, 2003

There is a historical parallel to what which recently has been going on in the Catholic Church that has been largely ignored. [See "Married Priests in Iceland," The Rittenhouse Review, May 20.]

A very similar situation occurred in China and Japan in Buddhist monasteries. (A good account is given in Bernard Faure's The Red Thread.) Priest and monks often took young boys as sexual partners.

Now, the interesting thing is that in many sects, Japanese monks and priests are now allowed to marry. This perhaps solved the problem of molestation, but introduced new ones as well.

Traditionally, the teacher had passed his lineage on to his best student. Once monks had families, however, it became a matter of course to pass it on through the family. Priesthood became a fairly lucrative profession, a "trade" like anything else. Many say this has degraded the practice.

Michael Siegel
Newton, Mass.

2003-05-21T13:50:00.000-07:00

ON TARGET ON "BUFFY"!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Curtiss Leung
Date: May 21, 2003

I'm glad someone is willing to go against the grain and say out loud what I've been thinking for a while: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is garbage. [See "There Truly is a God," TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse, May 19.]

It's teen porn with intellectual pretensions.

I visit your main site regularly, but this is the first time I've looked at "TRR The Lighter Side." I'll make a point to be back.

Signed,
Curtiss Leung
Brooklyn, N.Y.

2003-05-21T13:19:00.000-07:00

WARREN BUFFETT'S TIMING

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Andrew W. Cohen
Date: May 21, 2003

The timing of Warren Buffett's recent Washington Post op-ed may be spot on. [See: "A Rational Voice Amid the Cacophony of Absurdity," The Rittenhouse Review, May 21.]

I assume he's trying to get fellow Nebraskan Sen. Ben Nelson (D) to change his vote on the bill that comes out of conference.

Signed,
Andrew W. Cohen
Assistant Professor of History
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
Syracuse University
Syracuse, N.Y.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Ah...Very good point. I think you're right. And I hope it works!

2003-05-20T11:04:00.000-07:00

IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: "Kaspu" kas2416@yahoo.com
Date: May 20, 2003

Never in all my born days, have I ever, ever, seen a more self-referential blog than yours.

Signed,
"Kaspu"

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Thanks for visiting the site. And so often! I'm glad you're enjoying it.

"Kaspu," by the way, for readers unaware, is a psuedonym for a little -- and I mean that -- swamp monster otherwise known as the Babylonian Sewer Rat, who, despite his self-styled he-man insult-flinging, likes to hide behind fake names. When and why the little rat developed his unrequited schoolgirl crush on me has not yet been determined.

2003-05-16T11:39:00.000-07:00

DRINKS ARE ON ME (OR HER, ACTUALLY)

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Vicki Roush
Date: May 16, 2003

If you come to Key West for a visit, your first few cocktails are on ME.

Love your site and grieve with you for Ashleigh Moore.

Lots of working-class lefties at the bar. You'll like it.

Signed,
Vicki Roush
Green Parrot Bar
Key West, Fla.

2003-04-01T13:55:00.000-08:00

MURRAY DUBIN WRITES

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Murray Dubin
Date: April 1, 2003

You made mention last week of the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Conversations on War" series. [Ed.: See "'Conversations on War': With Rittenhouse Reader Susan Madrak," The Rittenhouse Review, March 26.]

As its [Ed.: the series's] author, I wanted you to know that the series began on Wednesday, Oct[ober] 29, and has appeared weekly except for the week of January 1[, 2003]. The interview [conducted] on Wednesday, April 2, will be the [published on the] 22nd.

Murray Dubin
Philadelphia Inquirer
Philadelphia

2003-04-01T03:42:00.000-08:00

DON'T FORGET FEINSTEIN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: V.W.
Date: April 1, 2003

Speaking of continually disappointing, you omitted my senator, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

Sen. Feinstein can speak very well but vote very badly when the vote counts: e.g., pro Bush tax cut, pro rollover for Bush resolution on Iraq in spite of overwhelming opposition from her constituents. My other senator, Barbara Boxer (D), and my representative, Susan Davis (D), both took the courageous high road and voted against conceding authority to President George W. Bush.

To quote Sen. Feinstein's Senate floor speech of October 10, 2002 regarding her position on the Iraq resolution:

I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office and with no other factors, I would have to vote against this resolution.

But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.

Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror.

In other words, Sen. Feinstein knows more than her constituents and their opinions are irrelevant.

By the way, 2002 was not an election year for her, so a difficult reelection campaign wasn't a factor.

V.W.

2003-03-31T17:45:00.000-08:00

FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rick O'Leary
Date: March 31, 2003

Other bloggers, Mary Beth Williams of Wampum, for example, may disagree, but Maine should not be on the list. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R) were instrumental in beating back the special protection for Eli Lilly & Co. last fall. Sen. Snowe was a leader of the group of moderates who defeated the President's $726 billion dollar tax cut proposal at a time of ever growing deficits and war. And both senators voted against oil drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I live in Georgia. I wish we had senators as good as Snowe and Collins.

Dwight Meredith
P.L.A. - A Journal of Politics, Law & Autism

2003-03-31T17:22:00.000-08:00

UNDERSERVED? TRY NOT SERVED AT ALL

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Steven desJardins
Date: March 31, 2003

You left out Washington, D.C. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

If not having any senators isn't embarrassing, then what is?

Signed,
Steven desJardins

2003-03-31T13:39:00.000-08:00

ON WISCONSIN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rick O'Leary
Date: March 31, 2003

Inasmuch as Sen. Russ Feingold (D) is single-handedly responsible for Attorney General John Ashcroft's confirmation, and whereas Sen. Herb Kohl (D) is a moderate non-entity, despite being rich enough to take a real stand every now and then and weather the storm…I nominate my state: Wisconsin. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

Rick O'Leary
Milwaukee

2003-03-22T17:48:00.000-08:00

ANYTHING GOES!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: M.P.
Date: March 17, 2003

Thank you for your recent post about the essay published in The Wall Street Journal praising insider trading. (See "We're The Wall Street Journal! We'll Print Anything!," The Rittenhouse Review, March 17, 2003.)

These guys are what George Soros calls "market fundamentalists." Anything goes -- On the assumption the market will adjust to insure fairness for all. That, of course, is completely wrong.

There's a huge problem associated with informing the public in a timely manner (say, about a company's "unreliable" bookkeeping), and Mr. and Mrs. America don't have the time to study the data and make decisions based on it. That's why we have regulation: Regulation makes an efficient market possible by ensuring there are common financial practices that we don't need to include in our analysis of a particular company's condition and outlook.

Anybody who wants a no-holds-barred approach to the market is merely making it easier for the scam artists to ply their trade. This extreme libertarianism leads to things like non-FDA-approved drugs (let the customer learn about and decide who to trust), unsafe products (if you get hurt, sue in court), and so on. [Ed.: Though the same "market fundamentalists" are now eagerly at work to limit liability for product manufacturers, physicians, and others.]

The after-the-fact pursuit of justice this philosophy leads to huge transaction costs that burden the economy writ large.

But as bad as the Journal article is, I think it does some good, demonstrating that Wall Street, or a portion thereof, is still unrepentant despite the massive scandals uncovered during the past several years.

No wonder the average investor continues to shy away from the market.

M.P.
(Name withheld by request.)

2003-03-21T20:08:00.000-08:00

REGARDING THE CAMPAIGN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: David Salkin [ d_salkin@msn.com ]
Date: March 21, 2003

I must say that since you started talking about running for the senate, I have almost completely stopped visiting your site. I don't know why exactly, and it doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for you (because I probably would). I guess it's because I don't expect fair commentary on politics from someone wanting to be on the inside.

Best of luck with it anyway.

David Salkin

2003-03-21T08:26:00.000-08:00

YOU MARCH, I'LL VOTE (FOR YOU)

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rich Fritzson
Date: March 21, 2003

I recommend you try attending one of the larger anti-war marches or demonstrations. (See, "Who Marches Against War in a Cold Rain?", The Rittenhouse Review, March 20, 2003.)

I went to Washington, D.C., in October and again in January. I'm 49 years old. I don't like attending protest marches. I didn't like it during the Vietnam era and I don't really like it much now. They make me feel powerless, like I'm shouting at someone who has already left the room, slammed the door and locked it behind them. Nevertheless, I don't want my children (ages 19 and 16) to share that feeling.

When there are hundreds of thousands of people protesting there, are more than "true believers" around. We marched alongside people of all ages. For a while, I helped carry a banner held up by 10 people none of whom was younger than me. There were former hippies, current hippies, college students, lots of former military, senior businessmen, mothers and grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers.

We met a woman who had brought her 10-year-old grandson. She was legally blind; her thick glasses gave her an owlish appearance. He said they were going to look out for each other.

We learned something. We were marching to the Navy Yard along a street on which I'd never walked before. The crowd began to chant, "What do we want?…Peace!", etc. But on the sidewalks, the observers, the people who lived on that street, shouted "Justice!" whenever we shouted "Peace!" And I knew they were right.

Of course, being at a newsworthy event and then reading about it later teaches you to distrust what you read about other events. And we all need regular reminding of that.

One thing we all noticed on those days in Washington, one of which was very cold, was that no representative of the government, no congressman, no senator, no member of the executive branch, no judge, came out to address the crowd. It made it quite clear that no one in the government represented us.

I wasn't planning to mention this but it seems like a good closing:

If you decide to run for Senate against Arlen Specter, I'll send you a check. Don't get excited. I'm nobody. I'm only good for a few hundred dollars in political contributions. But I live in the conservative suburbs. I'll go door to door. I'll try to inspire political action in our church. I'll write letters. And I'll vote for you.

Rich Fritzson
Paoli, Pa.

2003-03-17T10:20:00.000-08:00

MANNE IS STILL SINGING THE SAME TUNE

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: A Boston Attorney
Date: March 17, 2003

Your readers may not be aware that Henry G. Manne has been making his argument about insider trading in more or less the same form since 1966. [Ed.: See "We're The Wall Street Journal! We'll Print Anything!", The Rittenhouse Review, March 17, 2003.) The argument, while radical, has a certain plausibility, and accordingly has provoked a great deal of productive thinking and writing on the subject of market efficiency. However, the consensus view is that insider trading does indeed harm stock market efficiency. The only serious disagreement among most authorities is whether it hurts a little or a lot.

Robert Clark, a professor of corporate law at Harvard Law School who is now dean of that institution, addressed Manne's arguments in detail in his 1987 treatise on corporate law. With respect to Manne's claim that insider trading provides incentives for managers, Clark remarks, "It is simply implausible to believe that explicit executive compensation schemes are inadequate to induce managers to work vigorously for corporations." I doubt our experience with executive compensation over the last 15 years has changed Dean Clark's opinion on that subject.

(Also, Frank Easterbrook, a professor of corporate law at the University of Chicago, appointed by former president Ronald Reagan to a federal court of appeals, in 1981 observed that where managers engage in inside trading, they actually have perverse incentives to engage in risky ventures: If a risky bet pays off the manager can capture the gain by insider trading and if it doesn't the shareholders bear the cost. Clark refers to this as the "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose nature of insider trading.")

Clark further notes, "Insider trading allows managers to profit from their bad management….By using advance knowledge that the company's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse, they can sell their shares and avoid participating with other shareholders in the disaster."

This is the allegation currently directed at Sam Waksal of ImClone Systems Inc. and his friend, Martha Stewart. While I have no knowledge of the details of that particular case, Clark is plainly correct that there is no social benefit from permitting someone in that situation to profit from their advance knowledge of bad news.

Clark agrees with Manne's claim that insider trading helps to correct prices -- indeed, any trade on an open market has that effect. But Clark goes on to cite the landmark 1984 paper by Ronald Gilson and Reiner Kraakman, arguing there are far more efficient ways of ensuring that a company's stock price reflects material information about the company, such as requiring that the company's officers publicly disclose such information. That is in fact what the federal securities laws require.

(Gilson and Kraakman are themselves noted authorities on corporate law. The former is now at Stanford Law School and the latter is at Harvard Law, but I believe they wrote "The Mechanisms Of Market Efficiency" when they were both on the faculty of Yale University Law School.)

In short, a great deal has been learned in the last 30-odd years from thoughtful consideration of Manne's once-provocative suggestion. Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly, none of that is conveyed in Manne's essay for The Wall Street Journal.

Signed,
An Attorney (Name withheld by request.)
Boston

2003-03-06T20:57:00.000-08:00

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE DISABLED

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Annie Cataldo
Date: March 6, 2003

Yes, in response to your recent question, disabled Americans face discrimination daily, and they have one hell of a case to prove when they do.

I have permanently dislocated joints. My past employers did not want to spend a dime extra to accommodate me, unless I complained and mentioned the provisions of the Americans with Discrimination Act.

I have had to specifically ask for "anti-fatigue" rubber mats to stand on in laboratories where I have worked. I once worked as a federal contractor in an office that would not provide me with a chair needed for my degenerated disks, and I was assigned to work in a cold hallway. But it was a job -- with health benefits. How many choices do I have?

And I have been cursed and glared at often as I park in disabled parking spaces. Although I am disabled, it doesn't appear that way to the casual observer, in part because I'm not in a wheelchair. All too often at my last job I would find culprits in the disabled parking spaces, and management did nothing after three complaints. I had to quit.

I have had to quit jobs that would not accommodate my needs. But try proving their lack of cooperation with their employees' needs, let alone their lack of compliance with ADA. Most employees will tolerate their bosses' discriminatory attitudes so as not to "stir the pot." Besides, one doesn't receive unemployment benefits when one quits a job.

The disabled don't get many breaks in the real world. And I find it quite telling that we live in a nation where the only people to have guaranteed medical service are prisoners. Try being a disabled woman in Oregon, which I've begun calling the "Mississippi of the West."

This is definitely a silent form of discrimination. It's hard for disabled people even to tell their employers they are disabled, a reluctance I have experienced in the past, though thankfully I still have the right of privacy.

Thanks for bringing up this discussion.

Signed,
Annie Cataldo
Hood River, Ore.

2003-03-05T16:26:00.000-08:00

LYSISTRATA AND THE FOLLY OF WAR

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Mark Gibbens
Date: March 4, 2003

Thanks for the Lysistrata excerpts. You've prompted me to read the whole thing once I have time.

Unfortunately, I didn't see any commentary here or elsewhere on the irony inherent in the play, whether Aristophanes intended it or not. It is, of course, pure escapist fantasy. Nothing and no one ever succeeded in stopping the Peloponnesian War, which dragged on for 30 years or so for no good reason, with ultimately catastrophic results for both protagonists.

I hate to see the opportunity lost for a good lesson on the folly of war, with a special emphasis on its unexpected consequences.

Signed,
Mark Gibbens

2003-02-26T18:15:00.000-08:00

BUSH CLAN: BEACON FOR CRIME -- AND SLIME

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: J.F.
Date: February 24, 2003

I read major portions of the Washington Post puff piece on Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) (See "Whatever Happened to the Washington Post?", The Rittenhouse Review, February 23), in between frequent visits to the kitchen to wash the saliva out of my mouth and two quick trips to the bathroom, just in case the rolling and unsettlement in my stomach produced a purge. No luck there.

As someone who has been a proud resident of a sleepy, backwater, 19th century southern state for 13 years, I was appalled. Appalled by Jeb! and his apparently inherited lust to destroy representative government, as his "smarter and wiser" brother worked to bring about in Texas before moving on to bigger and better victims.

Your comment about the article makes me feel you're as cynical about a bought and paid for national press as I am. It's hard to believe the Post once was considered a crusading leader in its profession, isn't it? How the mighty have fallen.

Like all of the Bush family, Gov. Bush is self-isolated. That's a defense mechanism they've developed to avoid direct questions about their extra-constitutional actions, although why anyone would examine their track records and consider the family "moralistic" is beyond me. Since Prescott Bush's conviction for trafficking with the enemy in wartime, the entire clan has been a beacon for crime. Lacking morals and ethics, it seems to me.

With all that inherited guilt, plus the self-knowledge of their crimes over the last 20 years, it's also hardly surprising they're "emotionally brittle." Why, Jeb!, our state's great paragon of family values even failed to emotionally support his daughter when she was to appear in court for sentencing. Instead, he showed his commitment to family values by appearing at a campaign fund-raiser instead.

Disgraceful indeed!

Signed,
J.F.
Florida

2003-02-20T18:10:00.000-08:00

ABOUT THE NEW SOUTH

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: K.D.
Date: February 18, 2003

As a historian and a Southerner, and as an opponent of publicly funded honoring of the Confederate flag, I am baffled by your post, “Whatever Happened to the ‘New South’?”

You claim that the New South may have been a myth. To back up your thesis, you rely on an online poll. How does an online poll prove that the New South is a myth? Let me repeat the caveat underneath the poll: NOTE: This is NOT a scientific poll. It only reflects what some of our online users are expressing on a given day. Somehow that must have escaped your attention.

The New South is certainly modern. Anyone who has spent time in Atlanta, Jacksonville[,] and Chapel Hill, with their architecture, fast[-]food joints[,] and endless traffic, can tell you that.

Honestly, having spent time down South and in New York and New England, I found better race relations here in the South where whites and African-Americans generally deal with each other than in Manhattan or Hartford where whites and blacks are generally segregated.

Despite the best wishes of observers who went out of their way to look for a progressive South, from Frederick Law Olmsted to W.J.Cash to C. Vann Woodward, the South has never been and is not progressive. Certainly few people can even call Democrats in the South progressives. Most are Democratic Leadership Council types in the Clinton and Gore mold. The New South embraced business and lured jobs and companies out of the Rust Belt and into the Sun Belt as opposed to the Old South[,] which stressed the agrarian life. There are numerous books, articles, web sites talking about the neo-Confederate movement that you could have cited. You relied on a selective on-line poll.

We shall see what happens in Georgia. I suspect the 1956 flag people will win by the skins of their teeth. But, with a close race, no front runner [sic][,] and at least two major African-American candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Democrats could flock to the polls and bury the old flag. We shall see. I will say that the new flag has a better chance in March than it would in November.

I went to your site through the American Prospect and enjoyed it, despite my problem with your methods here.

Signed,
K.D.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

First, let me assure you that I did not “claim” that what is called the “New South” is a myth. Rather, I wrote, “maybe it was just a myth all along” (in the sub-headline) and “maybe the modern and progressive ‘New South’ was just a myth all along” at the end of the post. These are queries, suggestions, even, but not “claims.”

Second, I am fully aware that online polls are not scientific. I didn’t think it was necessary to repeat this widely known and accepted fact to my readers who, I assure you, are sufficiently sophisticated as to not need to be repeated that standard disclaimer. Regardless, I assume you are at least slightly troubled by the results to date of the Savannah Morning News poll, as I was and as were many readers who submitted their own comments.

I cited the poll not in an attempt to “back up my thesis” -- no thesis whatsoever was presented -- but only to alert readers to results to-date at the Savannah paper’s poll. I haven’t a clue, at least as of yet, whether this particular poll accurately represents the views of voters in southern Georgia, let alone the state as a whole.

Nonetheless, I found the tally disturbing and disappointing. And, frankly, I long since have grown tired of southerners reassuring the rest of the country that things have changed, that there is a “New South,” when there exists ample evidence to suggest otherwise.

After all, long after the happy proclamation of the “New South,” and the region’s greedy intake of whatever commercial venture came its way, South Carolina continued to send Strom Thurmond to the U.S. Senate, even when this plainly racist freak could barely be counted among the quick.

And North Carolina, which for reasons that escape me entirely enjoys an even more progressive reputation than the rest of the greater southeastern region, seemed to take great pride in being represented in the U.S. Senate by Jesse Helms.

Let’s be serious. The fact that the 19th century relics that all too many southerners would have -- and wish to have -- appear on their state flags is even considered a topic worthy of conversation in civilized society tells us much about the political climate in the region.

None of this is to suggest that states outside of the southeast are faultless or blameless, though your contention that life is better for African-Americans in the South than it is in New York or in Hartford, Conn., is dubious at best.

And I must say that I am surprised to see you refer to Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun as “two major African-American candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.” If either remains a viable candidate by the time Georgia holds its primary, I will be shocked.

Thank you for writing and I hope you will continue to visit the Review.

2003-02-14T11:39:00.000-08:00

UNFAIR TO FRANCE

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: F.E.
Date: February 14, 2003

While it seems to be a pastime that will not die, mocking the French for military ineptitude ignores a great deal of reality.

To use only their experience in World War II, the French army took almost 600,000 casualties (including Free French forces) during the invasion by Nazi Germany, 250,000 of them KIAs [killed in action]. Consider that this took place over the course of about one month, and compare those losses to the 900,000 casualties the U.S. army suffered over the course of the entire war.

Certainly there were strategic miscalculations on the part of French war-planners, but these were shared by a great number of European countries at the time that also capitulated quickly after being attacked. We never hear about those cowardly Poles, Danes, Belgians, Dutch, or Norwegians while the chest thumping is going on.

Just a thought.

I enjoy your site a great deal. Thank you.

Signed,
F.E.

2003-02-14T11:38:00.000-08:00

LOST ANOTHER ONE

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: John Isbell [ clayisbell@earthlink.net ]
Date: February 14, 2003

I go to your blog for the links. After reading that French thing you posted, that’s the last time I read what you write.

Signed,
John Isbell

2003-02-07T16:14:00.000-08:00

A GENEROUS READER

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Robert L. Belichick
Date: February 5, 2003

Thank you. Thank you. Your post on Eric Alterman’s appearance on “Crossfire” was perfect.

I know there aren’t many people who could actually appreciate how pathetic Tucker Carlson and the other wing-nut, L. Brent Bozell, were, but their blathering about “it’s a lie” when one delivers facts is so Rush Limbaugh.

I have to laugh when Carlson attacks anyone who hints on categorizing someone as it being an example of his opponent “calling them names,” when his whole shtick is, as a first line of attack, call someone a name. Gosh, it feels so high school debate team.

Signed,
Robert L. Belichick
Chicago

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

“So Rush Limbaugh”? “So high school”? You, sir, are too generous.

2003-02-05T16:41:00.000-08:00

MATT LAUER’S HAIR -- AND MINE

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: K.T.B.
Date: February 3, 2003

Those of you with fabulous manes (and you’ve made sure to point out that fact previously, you bastard) can’t understand that Matt Lauer suffers from the worst-case scenario of male pattern baldness.

He has neither the gracefully receding hairline nor the distinguished bald spot in the rear, both of which can be framed to advantage by skilled hair stylists. Rather, Lauer is suffering the uniform thinning of the entire top of the head, for which there is no dignified style available, other than the full head shave.

Perhaps in ten years he will have the chrome-dome book-ended by flowing locks that gives one the look of a serious man, but until then, if he lets his hair grow beyond a half-inch he is doomed to look like the Nicholas Cage character in “Adaptation.”

You may not agree with the haircut, but you must admit that he has little choice. I hope you will respond with sympathy rather than ridicule.

And yes, I’m headed toward the Lauer stage myself, so it hits home hard.

Signed,
K.T.B.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

When I wrote about Lauer last week, remarking upon his “new” hairstyle, I did so after having seen him on the “Today” show for just a few moments. I did not notice the creeping male-pattern baldness to which K.T.B. refers. Thus, my comments were not intended as disparagement, only surprise at the sudden change in Lauer’s appearance.

I assure K.T.B., and all readers, that my intention was not to mock Lauer for the unfortunate event of his hair loss, nor anyone else sharing in this development.

In fact, while I do continue to enjoy, at age 40, a full head of very thick -- almost annoyingly thick -- and fast-growing hair, none of it gray yet, by the way, I have for more than a decade made a point of not making light of the hair loss experienced by others.

As my eldest brother, who has seen some modest hair loss, once pointed out, doing so would be impolite and impolitic as, in his words, “That’s just the kind of thing that can come around and bite you in the butt later.”

Absolutely true. I know that day will arrive eventually and I do not intend to leave myself open to ridicule for having made light of the history of other men.

And so, while I am grateful for the current status of my mane, I do not and will not intentionally tease those not so fortunate.

I guess I should say, though, probably to the disgust and dismay of K.T.B. and others, that over the weekend I shaved off all of the hair on my head, just to see what it would look like. No reason to be upset: It will all be back within a few more days.

2003-01-28T17:41:00.000-08:00

KIDS TODAY: PUKING

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: S. G.
Date: January 28, 2003

In Boston, because our distinguished institutions of higher learning haven’t built enough dormitory space to keep up with their enrollments, students have been renting apartments off campus and they -- or more precisely, their parents -- have been bidding up the rents so high that working families can’t afford to live in the city. [See “Quick Takes,” final item, “Kids Today.”]

I will never forget the morning that I walked out the door of my basement apartment and discovered that someone had puked out a third-floor window.

As far as I’m concerned, Boston University is welcome to give single rooms to its students. Heck, give them room service and mints on their pillows every night. Just keep them off the streets!

Signed,
S. G.
Boston

2003-01-28T17:19:00.000-08:00

ANTI-DEPRESSANTS: WHAT’S REAL AND WHAT’S NOT?

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: M. B.
Date: January 26, 2003

I almost never agree with Norah Vincent but I think she’s right about SSRIs [See fifth item, “Take a Powder.”] (selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors).

Obviously for people who are clinically depressed, they’re a real break-through. But it didn’t seem Vincent’s column was aimed at these folks. By definition, clinical depression happens for no good reason. It’s not clinical depression if you’re quite reasonably bummed-out because you’ve just been diagnosed (as Vincent was) with multiple sclerosis. It doesn’t matter; if you’re inadequately cheerful for whatever reason, someone wants to write you a prescription.

I’m not inclined to depression. However in the last few years Prozac has been recommended to me on the occasions of my being unhappy over a messy divorce, a spell of unemployment, and the discovery that my mother had been covering up for my ex’s adultery. The idea seemed to be that wanting (respectively) some transitional time, a job, or an apology, or any sort of real-life solution is so unseemly; surely taking some “happy pills” would be nicer?

It’s not just me. Prozac has been prescribed for every freaking thing. Run “Fluoxetine” and “case report” together on MedLine and see what pops up. Are you obese? Maybe a bit overweight? Think you might become overweight? How about anorexic? Do you engage in any sort of sexual activity that someone else might find objectionable? (Since Fluoxetine is a notorious anti-aphrodisiac, it’s been prescribed for every sexual behavior you can think of, including being gay.) Are you a hypochondriac? A thief? A rapist? Autistic? Excessively religious? Did Sept. 11 make you sad? Here, take these.

It’s hard to overdose on SSRIs, they don’t interact with many other drugs, and their users usually like them, so there’s no penalty for prescribing them inappropriately. And honestly, I’m not sure how you’d impose one without stepping on a zillion toes, messing with patient privacy, etc. But SSRIs aren’t benign. They’re a class of strong psychotropic drugs generally taken daily for years at a clip.

As an analogy: Marijuana could be similarly described -- a strong psychotropic drug, not toxic or interactive and well liked by its users. If pot were legal and you had a condition treatable by being mildly stoned on marijuana 24/7, the effects on your personality (and the possible long-term effect of such a treatment), would be subtle (as with Prozac) but not negligible; it’s not something a sensible person would do without good reason.

Ironically, the trade-off for not having unattractive feelings is, as Vincent describes, displaying unattractive behavior. It seems (and I’m speculating here but Vincent makes the same observation) as if the depression-causing intellectual mechanism that these drugs interfere with also mediates some useful inhibitions. So I see these folks -- who, it must be admitted, are usually quite satisfied with their medication -- passing wind as if guiding fog-bound ships, regaling all present with the details of, including . . . [their] arrest record or spouse’s sexual proclivities, chattering noisily after the theatre lights dim, etc.

I know for some people a drug that makes you occasionally act like a bit of a jackass is a small price to pay for not being immobilized by abnormally despondent feelings. However, someone who falls into this category might not be aware of how casually these drugs are pushed on people whose despondency is a normal and fleeting reaction to the occasional [harsh realities] of this life.

M. B.
New York

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Although I believe M. B. has offered some valuable observations in this letter, given my familiarity with SSRIs and many other classes of anti-depressants and psychotropic medications arising from personal experience and considerable research, there are many arguments and suppositions that, as in Vincent’s Los Angeles Times column, I believe are misguided, erroneous, and completely false.

This truly is a topic that I would prefer to address in-depth at the Review at a later date.

For now, allow me to say that “depression” is the most poorly chosen word in the field of mental illness, perhaps in the entire realm of human health. I think the number of people who truly understand the magnitude of this disease is quite few -- and all too many of them are already dead by their own hands. I have yet to read a memoir of depression that comes close to relaying the hell that I have experienced for most of my life.

Psychopharmacologists will admit there is much they do not understand about how SSRIs work. And psychiatry has a history of using drugs to make diagnoses -- to which drug the patient responds determines what his problem actually is. I believe this is the reason researchers and physicians are trying SSRIs on so many conditions. Also not known is why different SSRIs work differently on different patients, considering the drugs’ chemical similarities.

My hope is that no one suffering from genuine clinical depression (something far more serious and debilitating than a general state of sadness, disappointment, or “the blues”) will refrain for even a single moment from seeking the help of a physician -- and a physician who understands this disease is a malfunction of the brain as an organ of the human body and not the mind as a figment of the novelist’s, or Sigmund Freud’s, imagination -- before waiting for his condition to improve on its own or wasting hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars on worthless “talk” therapy.

2003-01-27T11:09:00.000-08:00

A BANKER WRITES

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Name withheld
Date: January 26, 2003

Two quick notes on banker bonuses [See “Stuff That Makes Me Happy” (Final item therein.)]:

1. If we didn't get them, they would go to the shareholders, not the poor. I do think I get paid way too much -- and I do donate all that I can to the American Civil Liberties Union. You know who owns the major Wall Street investment banks, right? Why them instead of me?

2. If we didn't get paid that much, we'd quit. Some of the bankers I know are the brightest people around -- working 100-plus-hour weeks. I'm not going to plead hardship, but in creating the capital liquidity we do, we add a tremendous amount of productivity to the economy at large -- cut the pay, and these people would walk right out the front door -- either to retirement or to someone who would pay. That would not be good for the rest of the world, or it wouldn't change anything at all.

Now, I don't think that, perhaps, returning to pre-RayGun [sic] taxation schemes would be a bad idea -- I wouldn't mind if the second million I made (God, I wish I made a million at all!) was taxed at something like a 96% rate. I don't think my co-workers would quit over income redistribution -- it's about status, at some point. Money is just the checker at the craps table, so to speak. But to blame the bankers or the banks for paying us not to walk out the door is shooting the wrong people. Remember, those bankers who live in Manhattan overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic line in national elections. (Well, not the bankers themselves, but they get overwhelmed by the support structure, and that whole population gets counted on the Democratic line.)

Name withheld by request
New York, N.Y.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

I’m pleased to learn, based on the point made, or trying to be made, in the final two sentences of this letter, that the secretaries, clerks, waiters, and janitors serving their Wall Street masters vote Democratic. I suppose we should be grateful for that.

But allow me to say that the smartest, most intelligent, most gifted, and hardest-working people I know, all of whom outshine the typical “bright” investment banker, and I’ve known plenty of these, are not working in the securities industry. And the e-mail and other correspondence I receive from them require fewer corrections than this message did.

2003-01-23T12:13:00.000-08:00

ENTIRELY TOO KIND

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Dave Abston
Date: January 23, 2003

You were entirely too kind to wing-nut idiot Jay Caruso. (“Flippancy and Foot-in-Mouth,” January 21, 2003.)

Yes, it would be a shame if his nephew became a casualty of “President” Tipsy McStagger’s war for vengeance and oil, but, excuse me, just who exactly is it that’s walking around with a great big [vulgarity deleted] to go whomp Saddam’s ass? Am I wrong, or hasn’t Caruso for some time now been working himself up into a frothy lather over the prospect of sending 100,000 American troops, including his nephew, into harm’s way for reasons that no one but a bunch of right-wing ideologues can discern?

Just what does he think is going to happen over there, a big paintball contest? Or the sort of video game most wing-nut bloggers spend their days absorbed in?

Instead of apologizing for some perceived insult, perhaps you and everyone else should point out that people regularly get killed, injured, and suffer horribly in war, and that their families suffer as well.

If Caruso takes offense at having the obvious pointed out to him, tough [luck].

Signed,
Dave Abston
Vallejo, Calif.

2003-01-14T19:35:00.000-08:00

A CRANK WRITES

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Adam Shinbrot
Not The Star-Tribune
[ adam@notthestartribune.com ]
Date: January 14, 2003

[Regarding the Review's post today, “This is Really Cool: A New Blog is Up and Running,”], [y]eah, I don’t know how we’ve lived without it all these years.

Signed,
Adam Shinbrot
Not The Star-Tribune
[ adam@notthestartribune.com ]

2003-01-06T22:16:00.000-08:00

BEN SHAPIRO & THE GAG REFLEX

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Noah Schabacker
Date: January 6, 2003

I peruse your blog, The Rittenhouse Review, daily and am always entertained and informed by what I find.

It’s not often that what you link to triggers my gag reflex, but I must admit that Ben Shapiro sorely tests my belief that the “marketplace of ideas” is one of the cardinal virtues of a democratic society.

It’s not that Shapiro fisks with all the intelligence and wit of a troll; it’s not that his sense of entitlement and whiny posts are utterly juvenile; it’s not even that he uses his religion as an excuse for his intolerance and bigotry.

No, what really nauseates me is the smug self-assurance with which he delivers each steaming pile of scribbled excrement, as if the world really ought to be grateful to ol’ Ben for taking time out from his busy schedule of school, Sabbath, and “Lord of the Rings” to favor us with his fevered ramblings.

I felt soiled after reading his appeal for crimes against humanity in the occupied territories.

I am ashamed to call myself a Jew when I read what passes for virtue and morality among those on the war-mongering Right, and I sincerely question the value of speech calling for the violation of international law and calling for the political and physical destruction of an entire people.

Then I look back at a paper I wrote as a freshman in college where I asserted the necessity of people of high moral character and just spirits to refute those who would undermine the ideals of justice and peace, and I am very happy that you and your counterparts on the left are doing the heavy lifting in the land of electronic text.

Thanks for all your hard work.

Noah Schabacker
Boulder, Colo.

2002-12-23T13:39:00.000-08:00

SAYING THANKS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: T.S.T.
Date: December 17, 2002

I’ve bookmarked your Web site and read it every day, Mr. Capozzola.

I appreciate your politics and wit and have used your extensive list of blog links to discover other interesting sites.

Thank you and please keep up the good work.

Best,
T.S.T.

2002-12-23T10:00:00.000-08:00

STRIKING BACK

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: M. Davis
Date: December 20, 2002

You, sir, write very well.

I read your jeremiad against Norah Vincent just now with unusual relish.

I have wondered for a while how Ms. Vincent gets published -- not because she spouts asinine viewpoints, but because she simply cannot write. At least George Will can turn a phrase.

I live in Los Angeles, and the Times subjects me to Ms. Vincent’s writing far too often. I was delighted to see the blogosphere strike back.

Thanks for adding a new source of reasoned inquiry to my file of bookmarks.

Best,
M. Davis
Los Angeles

2002-12-22T18:48:00.000-08:00

ANDREW SULLIVAN EMBARRASSES HIMSELF?
NORAH VINCENT HATES ME?

[Editor’s Note: This e-mail arrived carrying the subject line: “Blog circle jerks.”]

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Siva Vaidhyanathan [ sv24@nyu.edu ]
Date: December 20, 2002

I love your blog and read it habitually when I should be grading my student papers or writing my own book.

But one thing I hate about it and so many other major blogs is the circle of snide blog reference. Who cares what some other blogger wrote or said? Who cares if [Andrew] Sullivan is embarrassing himself again? Who cares if Norah Vincent hates you?

Give me wit. Give me insight. Give me news. That’s what you do most days.

Signed,
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Department of Culture and Communication
New York University

2002-12-22T18:39:00.000-08:00

LISA McNULTY & HER FRIEND NORAH VINCENT

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Lisa McNulty [ doloreshaze68@hotmail.com ]
Date: December 20, 2002

Regarding today’s Norah Vincent post [Editor's Note: Actually, it was published the previous day, on December 19.] -- you were working awfully hard at denials and recriminations for someone as blameless as you claim to be. Reminds me of Tom Cruise’s absurdly overzealous lawsuit to prove he wasn’t gay. It seems that you, were caught with your proverbial pants down as well. Perhaps next time you will be more judicious in your accusations, for it seems you don’t enjoy looking foolish in public. Unless, of course, you are just enjoying the free press from a writer more accomplished and more visible than yourself. While I often disagree with Ms. Vincent’s work, your behavior in response to it has been and is tiresome and shabby. You seem smart, try not to lash out like a twelve-year old next time someone hurts your feelings.

Signed,
Lisa McNulty

[Post-publication addendum (February 16): For more information about Lisa McNulty and Nora Vincent, see Upstream Mailing List “Conservative Gay Columnist is Under Fire,” and “Writer Norah Vincent Moves to the `Bburbs,” in the Philadelphia Gay News, February 14, 2003. The heading for this letter was changed on the same date.]

2002-12-12T08:46:00.000-08:00

SWITCHING SIDES

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Bill Dunlap
Date: December 10, 2002

Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-Miss.) remarks, offensive as they are, are too nebulous an issue for the senators you mention to switch parties. [“It’s Time to Pull a Jeffords,” December 9.]

However, those senators who were assured that the extraneous items slipped into the Homeland Security Act would be taken out next year should use their leverage as possible Democrats or Independents to force the issue: “Make the changes you promised or we’re out of here.” [Note: See “Lilly White Lies,” November 21.]

Bill Dunlap
Lake Oswego, Ore.

2002-11-26T17:32:00.000-08:00

BLACKBALLING & CENSORING

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Richard Ames [ Semarla@cs.com ]
Date: November 26, 2002

You wrote regarding your blackballing of LGF the following: >>>the site’s unwillingness to tolerate comments that deviate from the house line and its active and aggressive deletion of comments from readers that it deems objectionable -- and the “bright line” test involved is almost totalitarian in nature and scope -- is nothing less than a disgrace.<<<

Well, are you not now “unwilling to tolerate comments that deviate from the house line.”? Hey, if you don’t agree with him, challenge him. But please don’t start censoring.

Signed,
Richard Ames
Pittsburgh

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

I made my position clear with respect to LGF on Friday, November 22. If that post did not, in your mind, constitute a “challenge,” I assure you that LGF and its allies have interpreted it to be exactly that.

I am censoring no one, not even LGF. I have not visited LGF since last week, so I cannot say this with absolute certainty, but I suspect LGF has continued to publish since November 22 just as it did before.

Moreover, I hope the links to the nearly 600 publications from the U.S. and abroad, ranging in perspective from far left to far right, to which The Rittenhouse Review has linked under its blogroll will persuade you, if only slightly, that I have no intention of standing in the way of the free flow of information.

2002-11-26T16:22:00.000-08:00

AH, THE POORLY SERVED YOUTH OF AMERICA
Yet Another “Professor” Who Can’t Write

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: JR [ bueducom@yahoo.com ]
Date: November 26, 2002

Perhaps this can be added to your fatuous self-promotion list on right (top!) of blog: ‘you are a moron’ or “this is the worst blog I’ve ever read.” And “god, you are pompous, self-important and stupid.” The trifecta of blogging. Imagine you, so judgmental and superior...over LGF??!! Yipes, another desperate Dem faced with the overwhelming evidence of your lost cause.

Do you know how many visitors LGF and the like get compared to you?

Signed,
Professor J

2002-11-25T21:59:00.000-08:00

UM, THANKS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: K.R.D.
Date: November 25, 2002

I don’t know where the hell that article, “Al Gore and the Alpha Girls”, came from but that was some awesome s***.

I need to start doing stuff like that. I wrote some stuff when I was in college that some of my friends liked. If I find it I can send it to you.

Signed,
K.R.D.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Thanks, K.R.D. Actually, I normally ask that readers not send e-mail while they are intoxicated or otherwise not in full possession of their faculties. However, given the crap that lately has been coming in over the transom -- or, more accurately, oozing under the door -- I’ll not only take what I can get, I will say, happily, I suppose, that your message easily surpasses the quality of at least the last dozen I have received.

2002-11-25T10:18:00.000-08:00

MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Aron Mellich [greenblusea@yahoo.com]
Date: November 25, 2002

Thanks for turning me on to the weblog known as Little Green Footballs.

Your mention of it made me curious, of course, so I checked it out. I found information and commentary at the site to be mostly grounded in empirical evidence coming directly from its targets of criticism -- such as translations from Arabic found at the Middle East Media Research Institute -- as well as conventional media reports.

Typical headlines at LGF are “Religion of Peace Gets Busy” and “Religion of Peace at it Again.” The substance of LGF’s sarcasm has to do with the deliberate killing of innocents and the untruthful rationales that are given by the (mainly Muslim) terrorists for their actions.

Now I haven’t looked much into the reader comments, but the posts on the front page are fairly tame -- hardly “a vile cesspool of racism, bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, and hate.” Are you sure about that?

Signed,
Aron Mellich
Seattle

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

It’s interesting that Mr. Mellich appears not to have noticed that my criticism of LGF was directed almost entirely at the site’s tolerance for odious commentary -- and intolerance for incompatible commentary -- the feature of the site he says he hasn’t “looked much into.”

2002-11-25T06:56:00.000-08:00

STRIKEN FROM THE ROLL

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Kevin Skjei [kskjei@sbcglobal.net]
Date: November 22, 2002

I completely disagree with your article on LGF. I’ve been reading it for some time, and I simply don’t see the level of discourse there rising to what you cite as: “a vile cesspool of racism, bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, and hate.”

In fact, your characterization as such makes your own credibility suspect. I took a quick scan of your own blog.

I agree with your assessment that it is time to take a stand: accordingly, you are removed from my blog roll.

Respectfully,
Kevin Skjei

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

One might well argue LGF has a long way to travel before the level of discourse there rises to that of racism, bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, and hate.

Needless to say, I’m crushed, wounded, and heart broken to learn I have been dropped from the blogroll at your unnamed and unidentified weblog.

I’m surprised, however, that you say you needed to take “a quick scan” of The Rittenhouse Review before eliminating the link. I would have thought you would have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the Review before adding it in the first place.

Moreover, if my low regard for LGF is so distressing to you, I wonder why you didn’t remove the link on October 23 in response to the Review’s comments about the site in an article entitled “Daily Howler Blows it on Sniper Coverage.”

2002-11-25T06:42:00.000-08:00

YOUR EGO

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: R.P. Pharmeter [pharmeter@yahoo.com]
Date: November 25, 2002

LGF couldn’t buy the publicity that your blog has given it today.

In as much [sic] as your “stand” is so counterproductive to your alleged goal, one might reasonably wonder whether the issue is more about LGF or more about your ego.

Do you hold your readers in such low regard that they shouldn’t be trusted to read and form their own opinions about LGF?

Signed,
R. P. Pharmeter

2002-11-22T11:09:00.000-08:00

GLAD YOU’RE BACK

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: B.C.
Date: November 22, 2002

I was afraid the election would demoralize the Democratic Party base, and my fears were beginning to seem justified when many liberal bloggers declared they were going on hiatus or decreasing the volume of posts in the weeks following.

I guess I should have realized it wouldn’t take long for Republican politics to reenergize us.

Keep up the good work.

B.C.
Kansas City, Mo.

2002-11-01T10:05:00.000-08:00

A LETTER TO THE STRANGER

A Rittenhouse Review reader has passed along a letter sent recently to the editor of The Stranger in response to that paper’s publication of “Say ‘Yes’ to War on Iraq,” by Dan Savage, a piece discussed at the Review on October 20 (“Savage Joins the Gay Men’s War Chorus”).

To the Editor:

And now Dan Savage, self-styled independent thinker, gets on the wagon. Of what wagon am I speaking? His is one of a rash of recent op-eds in which mature thinkers (sort of leftist, but more reasoning than those knee-jerk, puppet-making, Mumia-lovin’, anti-war protesters) scold the children of the anti-war left for their simplistic sloganeering, their failure to understand history, their blindness to all evils but America’s, even their Communist leanings. (Mr. Savage’s column does not go as far as to identify the entirety of the anti-war movement as tainted by Communism; others have.)

“Say No to War, Say No to Oppression” -- that’s not well thought out! I must have more moral direction than all the people who oppose war in Iraq. I must be smarter and more courageous than all of them! Do I misrepresent Mr. Savage’s assertions? No. He provides one eight-word poster to represent “the left” and then goes on to ask, “When did the left [not “the people who posted that sign,” but “the left”] lose its moral compass?” He goes so far as to address an imaginary anti-war interlocutor, one whom he presents as representative of the entire anti-war left, as “stupid.”

Why can’t Mr. Savage, independent thinker, understand that the anti-war left is not monolithic? Why does he choose the most poorly reasoned arguments to address when there is an abundance of better ones, and present these arguments as representative of the whole? He must be unable to take on more complicated arguments. The man who cannot conceive of intelligent, principled opposition, who in a debate reduces his opponent to an inaccurate caricature, only reveals his own intellectual poverty.

Just to demonstrate exactly how shallow is Mr. Savage’s treatment of some of the issues in the debate, I’d like to address some individual points in his column:

1) Mr. Savage imagines that we lefties have been too busy making puppets to read and rejoice over the sentence in the New York Times that announces the Bush administration’s plans to install an American-led military government in Iraq. It makes me wonder if Mr. Savage has been too busy fantasizing about Ashton Kutcher to read the sentences in the Times (and plenty of other sources, if you’re listening, Mickey Kaus) that inform us Hamid Karzai’s government has little control outside of Kabul and that tribal warlords are fighting over most of the country. It’s not as if Al-Qaeda members were migrating back into Afghanistan over the Pakistani border. Oh, wait . . . But we lefties, as we flip through the pages of the Times with globs of papier-mâché on our hands, are supposed to take heart that President Bush has embraced WWII-style nation building in Iraq, even though he campaigned against it. It’s gone so well so far in Afghanistan. I’m sure the Bushies will be more motivated in Iraq; a stable puppet government there means reconstructed oil fields means diminished OPEC influence means good things for Americans (and probably the world). Whether creating that stable, puppet government will be easy, and whether we puppet-making lefties should sound a huzzah because the Bush administration has plans, is another question. One thing is certain: a key difference between nation building after WWII and after a prospective war in Iraq is that after WWII we had clear international support, which makes nation building a hell of a lot easier.

2) There is a gap between lefties’ arguments that it’s immoral to support friendly dictators and the conclusion that we should preemptively invade countries. President Reagan hardly supported the Soviet Union. Reagan also did not preemptively invade the Soviet Union. We do not currently support Iraq. Reagan did; Bush doesn’t. A doctrine of containment and tough arms inspections, which many of the anti-war left advocate when they’re not busy making puppets, does not constitute support, nor does it constitute “appeasement” as Andrew Sullivan and his ilk are wont to argue. Are misgivings about this new doctrine of preemptive strike in the absence of imminent threat, a violation of international law, stupid according to Mr. Savage? Is imagining that this new doctrine could allow, say, India to use U.S. actions as a precedent to attack Pakistan stupid? Are worries about war between two nuclear powers, as opposed to a war between a nuclear power (us) and a wannabe (Iraq), stupid? Granted, the threat of a new “preemptive strike” doctrine will be diminished if the Bushies decide to take a different route to war, one that uses Iraq’s violations of U.N. weapons prohibitions as pretext, as they seem to be doing by returning inspectors and appealing to the U.N. Security Council for a resolution. They did this only under pressure, however, from, among other sources, the left. (The left must have taken a break from its puppet making.) However, there is no reason to believe that the Bushies are abandoning preemption or unilateralism; they’re embraced in the national security strategy released Sept. 20. Never mind that the Bush administration’s bullheaded pursuit of unilateralism--even if sustained, committed efforts at multilateralism could work--would only invite freeloading European countries to let us do all the housekeeping for them, resulting in higher taxes, more dead soldiers, and more international resentment for us. But worrying about the dangerous new doctrine of preemptive strike, about the Bush administration’s essential desire to abandon the principle of international law, and about the coming establishment of a new American world police force is stupid and cowardly according to independent thinker Dan Savage. After all, it’s the kind of thing the anti-war left thinks about, and the left has lost its moral compass.

(3) Mr. Savage says that the American left refuses to back any war. At this point I just have to ask what planet he’s on. I don’t have poll numbers on the percentage of Americans who supported the war in Afghanistan, but I seem to remember it was up in the eighties or even the nineties. Were all of those people raging conservatives? The resolution in support of military action in Afghanistan passed by overwhelming margins in the House and Senate (were there any votes against it?). Apparently the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) are indistinguishable to Mr. Savage. The left won’t support any war; Wellstone must be a rabid right-winger. For that matter, plenty of Democratic senators voted to support Bush’s use of force in Iraq. Some of that support was political calculation, to be sure, but still, last I checked, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was widely considered part of the left, and she supported a war.

(4) Mr. Savage argues that those on the left who suggest the possibility that an attack on Iraq could encourage terrorism are “squish-brains.” He refutes this with his “reading of history” that plenty of countries we’ve dropped bombs on have not produced terrorists. There is a very simple counter-argument to his point, which he would address if he were at all interested in intelligent discussion. Evidently, dropping bombs on someone is not a sufficient condition for creating terrorism. This does not mean that populations that have a propensity to terrorism for other reasons (Islamic fundamentalism, a perception that the West is a force against Islamic self-determination) will not be incited to further terrorism by a war with Iraq, or that terrorists will not find it easier to find recruits with Al-Jazeera broadcasting fiery images of the destruction of Iraqi homes on television. I don’t know whether it’s true that a war with Iraq would incite rather than prevent terrorism, but Mr. Savage does nothing to argue the latter with his meaningless list of countries we’ve bombed. Who is the squish-brain?

(5) His imaginary friend points out to Mr. Savage that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are not allies and asks why we should go to war with Saddam Hussein to combat terrorism. He calls his poor abused imaginary friend “stupid” and tells him that we’re at war with an Islamo-fascist movement. I might remind Mr. Savage, in defense of his imaginary friend, that Saddam Hussein is not an Islamo-fascist. He’s just a fascist. A secular one. Not part of the movement. Yes, Iraq is one of several state sponsors of terrorism, but Mr. Savage’s sneering condescension towards anyone who seeks to draw a distinction between bin Laden and Saddam is utterly unjustified. George Tenet just announced that we are at as great a risk from Al-Qaeda as we were on September 10, 2001. It’s at the very least questionable whether Iraq is our greatest current threat or whether a war with Iraq (and a subsequent massive-scale occupation) is the logical next step in the war on terrorism. Is anyone who suggests as much stupid in Mr. Savage’s eyes? That says as much about his clouded vision as it does about the intellectually deficient anti-war left.

Perhaps, as the editor of an alternative newsweekly, Mr. Savage has a skewed view of what constitutes the left, i.e., his paper’s readership. Let me inform him: I’m a left-winger who lives in New York. When I pick up the Village Voice, I read his column and then recycle it. I’ve never made a puppet for political purposes and I feel uncomfortable at mass demonstrations. I don’t walk around raising my fist and shouting, “Viva el Sendero luminoso!” Post-9/11, post-Bali, what choice do we have? There are choices. One is to press for forcefully worded inspections resolutions at the U.N. at the very least in an attempt to see if he can be disarmed without invasion. If he absolutely cannot, I would agree that war with Saddam is necessary, for several reasons, one of which is that the U.N. will never be an effective governing body if its most important dictates are not backed by any credible threat of force. In the meantime, we can choose to use our resources to pursue the Al-Qaeda threat, which is in all probability the gravest and the most immediate before us, and to become more serious about stabilizing Afghanistan.

Perhaps I am lucky enough to escape Dan Savage’s wrath because there is a scenario in which I might support war in Iraq. But doesn’t that prove that the left isn’t monolithic? Some might be against Bush’s seemingly preferred method of waging war (unilaterally, preemptively), some against it in the face of graver threat from Al-Qaeda, some opposed because without an international consensus, building a strong post-war Iraq will be dicey at best (in fact, I could go on and on here). Maybe Dan Savage is right about when and why we should invade Iraq, but he doesn’t make his case by failing to confront his opposition. And even if I can’t fit myself snugly into the pigeonhole of anti-war left, I trembled with anger as I read this column (and not just because he owes me a Hitachi Magic Wand): anger on behalf of the thoughtful, principled opposition to Bush which I am a part of, which Dan Savage would deny even exists. His snide, smug condescension is so utterly unearned if I am to take this column as indicative of his skills at political analysis. I sound smart when I talk to my imaginary friends too.

Perhaps Dan Savage could give me some good sex tips, but he is no one to tell me I’m stupid if I dare to take a different political stance than he does. Moreover, he exhibits one of the worst characteristics of our contemporary political discourse: an inability to counter one’s opponent honestly and discuss policy issues on their merits, without misrepresenting the opposing position or oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity. Unless he learns to debate honestly and intelligently, I’m going to stick to his writings on the subject of cross-dressing coprophiliacs.

Yours truly,
Katie Surrence
New York, N.Y.

2002-10-28T23:00:00.000-08:00

MORE DOPEY HATE MAIL

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Brian Ish [ mailto: brianish@hotmail.com ]
Date: October 29, 2002 1:54 a.m.

Thanks for the insight that it’s okay for gay men to call each other fags and black men to call each other house slaves when they disagree with with one another’s opinion. (Update: Another political theorist, [Rep.] Charles Rangel-[(]D[-N.Y.)], echoed Mr. [Harry] Belafonte’s ridiculous remarks yesterday, but not to worry, he’s black too).

And though it’s obvious that this type of attack has no effect whatsoever on the level of discourse that one would expect from adults who actually want people to listen to and respect their opinions, it does beg an obvious question: What do idiot lefty apologists like yourself call each other when you get together ([O]r am I not alllowed [sic] to call you that?)?

P[.]S[.] [sic]: Slamming Drudge is pretty funny considering he pioneered the weblog format that apparently any knucklehead can operate these days.

Sincerely,
Brian Ish
New York, N[.]Y[.]

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Drudge runs a weblog? I thought his site was just a haphazard collection of links.

It’s funny, I think, given your ire, that Andrew Sullivan’s anti-Belafonte rant was not the subject of my post, even in passing. Perhaps you meant to send this to someone else?

Regardless, thanks for writing.

2002-10-25T19:28:00.000-07:00

MASH NOTE

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: V.M.
Date: October 18, 2002

I just wanted to thank you for providing intelligent content on your weblog each day. Yours is easily the most thoughtful of the dozen or so blogs I read.

I was especially impressed with your comments on Donald Johnson’s letter about Noam Chomsky. Your nuanced response reminds me that I should strive to reason and to write as well as you.

V.M.

2002-10-25T19:24:00.000-07:00

TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF “INCREASED VISIBILITY”

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: C.E.
Date: October 19, 2002

I suspect that by “increased visibility” [“The Hunt for Left-Wing Homophobia”], Charles Murtaugh means one of two things: (a) Mickey Kaus mentions Andrew Sullivan a fair amount, or (b) there is an increasing number of sites devoted to tracking Sullivan’s “increased” derangement as a political observer.

And by “left-wing homophobia,” I suspect Murtaugh means there is an increasing number of sites devoted to tracking Sullivan’s increased derangement as a political observer.

And by commenting on Sullivan’s “increased” derangement as a political observer, I probably have joined Murtaugh’s ranks of “left-wing homophobes.”

C.E.

2002-10-25T18:18:00.000-07:00

ON CHOMSKY AND VIDAL, AGAIN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Ben Casselman
Date: October 20, 2002

Your point about Noam Chomsky is well taken -- conservatives certainly have a tendency to go after ‘easy marks’ rather than take on those who make the best case for a liberal of leftist viewpoint. But it is worth noting that liberals have exactly the same tendency. Note, for example, the amount of ink spilled in recent months against Ann Coulter, who, though certainly deserving of all the criticism she has received, is hardly the strongest voice for the conservative side.

Some liberals, and some conservatives, have chosen to debate the issues fairly, and in a few cases have articulated their opponents’ case better than their opponents themselves. But that is the exception on both sides. Bloggers, good and bad, are particularly guilty of this sin because few can resist the urge to take on a particularly juicy Coulter quote (or Chomsky quote), while far fewer will feel an obligation to respond to less extremist articulations of the opposition.

All this is to say only that both sides have a tendency toward intellectual laziness, and that political debate is always furthered more by debating issues than by attacking easy marks.

Ben Casselman
New York, N.Y.

2002-10-25T18:14:00.000-07:00

ON CHOMSKY AND VIDAL

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Larry Piltz
Date: October 20, 2002

I’ve just come upon your weblog and found what I read informed and interesting though perhaps a bit smug and apathetic, though I understand that this impression might be a bit hasty. Either way, your “dispassionate observer” voice, though probably in the interest of objectivity and balance, seems to barely mask an indifference and a passive investment in an unaltered status quo, which to me would be unconscionable given the huge amount of unnecessary suffering in this interconnected world and the ease with which so much good is done. [“Chomsky As ‘Easy Mark,’” October 17, 2002.]

In answer to your wonderings about why Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal seem to evoke such passionate defense among some of your correspondents (such as me), I’d just simply say that they are possibly the two most knowledgeable, poignant and identifiable representatives of one pole of the bipolar U.S. personality, which is comprised at the other pole of any and all jingoistic, suspiciously patriotic and quasiparanoiac individuals and groups that hold the U.S. blameless and otherwise infallible in its doings both at home and abroad and who want to know nothing at all ever about the intolerable human costs of U.S. policies now and in the past.

That Chomsky and Vidal are the antithesis of blind patriotism and corrupted nationalism is only part of the balancing mystique. They also uniquely strike an emotional chord that plays opposite to an unquestioning adherence to goals set by ruling economic oligarchies and concomitant militarism.

This chord is characterized by its clarity, assuredness, factual reliability, and, in Vidal’s case, creativity and matches in tone (though without the naiveté of) the faith-based belief necessary for allegiance to the obfuscation and manipulation so confidently disseminated at the “unchallengable” other pole. Chomsky and Vidal’s appeal is spontaneous and as justified by humanistic integrity at their pole as it is unjustified and, yes, manufactured, by the intentional deception and mechanistic knee-jerk nihilism of the other pole. Both poles do display a real cleverness and intelligence, of course.

Sure Chomsky and Vidal require certain adherences and have stridence of their own, but these exactly mirror the rigidities of the ruling dogma and help balance the political equation. And what you consider a Chomsky flaw of exaggeration is really a reflection of the bloated expanding and mutating set of articulated rationalizations and justifications for economic and military dominances and their concomitant cruelties at the other pole.

This reflection is both organic and organized, consciously refuting and negating point by point the unreality of the dominant end of the ionic bond that is political life. This precision is absolutely necessary, since war-encouraging institutes and other think-speak tanks constantly produce and regularly publish detailed manifestoes that keep people angry and agitated for the purpose of selling arms, repressing minorities, destroying the environment, et al, dear writer, et al.

When you describe Chomsky’s use of the word genocide as an exaggeration, I detect and almost tangibly feel (smell, taste) the widespread and thorough seep into your being of surrender to and equivocation about your own role in passive, private acceptance of the real and ongoing atrocities committed by your and my government, now and in historic times.

You see, genocide is still genocide even if done piecemeal over generations, except to apologists, deniers and those otherwise disengaged due to apathy and other sins of satiation and/or defeat. It seems to me you fault Chomsky for an invented flaw of being up to the task of accurately and emphatically describing the emperor’s old and new stealth clothing both, doing it well, and doing it loudly.

Certainly, people who keep more quiet, such as yourself, appear to be doing no overt harm, but to criticize people for being courageous enough to be both correct and exhortative is to be almost complicit in the crimes of horror from which you want to be sheltered and protected -- always at the cost of anyone else’s life and lifestyle but one’s own.

Thanks for listening to my reasoned and impassioned opinion.

Larry Piltz
Austin, Texas

2002-10-25T18:05:00.000-07:00

ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: F.D.L.
Date: October 24, 2002

Dr. John is worth your attention. He is a great old blues master.

As to the rest, I haven’t heard of them either.

F.D.L.

2002-10-25T17:40:00.000-07:00

SURELY YOU JEST

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: N.L.
Date: October 24, 2002

I’m really amazed. Can it really be that you have never heard of Dave Brubeck, George Jones, or Dr. John? No one can keep up with all of popular music, but these are giants of their genres (jazz, country, New Orleans piano/boogie/blues). [“Idiocy and Genius: Making My Way Through the Culture of Music,” October 23, 2002.]

Maybe tomorrow, instead of struggling with blogger’s block by writing about what doesn’t interest you, you could take the day off and arrange to listen to some of their music. I’m thinking Brubeck would be the one to start with for you.

N.L.