By Mailbox

This week: Clinton supporters jump on Mugger’s case against Bill; calling Armond White an elitist hypocrite feels good; I spy a Gotbaum ad; a diffident defense of a dubious film.

Hillary For Reals
Unlike Russ Smith, I am looking forward to Bill Clinton back in the White House (“The Trouble With Bill,” Jan. 30-Feb. 5). I am glad that he will be Hillary’s most influential advisor because the Clinton years were good years: eight years of peace and prosperity.

The so-called Clinton scandals are not going to hurt Hillary. They were all investigated for eight years by a right-wing, out-of-control special prosecutor named Ken Starr and he could not find any evidence of wrongdoing.
Therefore, if the GOP does bring up those so-called scandals, Hillary can just brush them aside as old news and evidence of desperation. As for Obama, no Democrat should ever say anything positive about Ronald Reagan the way Obama did. Reagan was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. The Reagan legacy was a $4 trillion debt, selling arms to Iran, tax cuts for the rich and the demonization of the poor
and minorities.

It seems that Obama is more interested in appealing to the GOP than seeking the approval of Democrats.
That is why I loathe Obama and why I’m supporting Hillary for president. She has the potential to be a great president.
—Reba Shimansky, Brooklyn

Mugger’s No-Good Nattering
Why stop at dredging up Gennifer Flowers 16 years later? There’s always Vince Foster. Ricky Ray Rector was sentenced to death before he sustained the injury that dropped his IQ precipitously. To say Reagan had anything to do with Starbucks and Microsoft’s success is like arguing that Bill Clinton was responsible for the dotcom bubble bursting. Oh yes, Russ did write that.

I love when Russ writes, “it can be argued.” It can also be argued that Reagan let Ollie North run around like a bandolero. The Challenger exploded in 1986, should Reagan take credit for that? How about the hundreds of thousands who died at the hands of apartheid and AIDS in the ’80s, should Ronnie take credit for that?

Reagan was white America’s last hope, so I understand the adulation, but let’s hesitate at giving him credit for inventing the wheel. And if he did, it was invented for only the wealthiest riders.
—Sam Greenfield, Manhattan

Impassioned Elitist in Pauper’s Clothing
In [Armond White’s] review of Cloverfield (“Media-Memory Mistake,” Jan. 23-29) he suggests, as a way to demean their work, that the directors of The Blair Witch Project deserve to now be working as greeters at Wal-Mart.
This can’t be the first time such a determined asshole as yourself has been told this, but that won’t stop me:
Fuck you.

You—who at the slightest possible provocation leap to attack phantom or, occasionally, real elitists in your reviews—choose in this case to make a lame, easy and extremely elitist joke demeaning a job filled primarily by either the disabled or (more often) the elderly, who are forced to work bottom-rung jobs such as these well beyond retirement age thanks to the Republican government whose ass you so bafflingly take every opportunity to kiss. Arrogance I can stand, but not hypocrisy.
Your review of There Will Be Blood (“A Guilt-Soaked Epic,” Jan. 2-8) betrayed an almost touching inability to realize how deeply its protagonist’s suffocating isolation resonated with your own, so I think it’s fitting that I quote Daniel Plainview in saying, I’m finished.

That’s right, Press editors: Armond White’s scattershot bile was the only thing keeping me reading for the past couple of years, and he’s finally done me the favor of pissing me off enough to stop. Sad fact is, his reviews were still the only thing bearing the semblance of intelligence that you all have published in ages. Get it the fuck together. Or don’t. I won’t be reading.
—Micah Allen, Brooklyn

One Hand Washes the Other
Let’s see: First, NY Press runs a long puff-piece cover story on Betsy Gotbaum (“Got baum?,” Jan. 16-22) the nearly invisible “Public Advocate,” then, the very next issue has a half-page ad on page 5 advertising the “Office of Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum,” complete with three photos of Herselfness advocating for the people, I suppose. Never saw such an ad before. I have a funny feeling that I and my fellow taxpayers paid for it, to promote Gotbaum’s ambitions to be the next mayor.

You followed that up in the next issue with a mash letter to her from someone or other (who knows who, an accomplice of Gotbaum?). Well, one hand washes the other, eh?

Only useful thing about the original puff-piece article was Gotbaum breaking cover and copping to her CIA role in Brazil. Your writer neglected to mention that the year in question was right after the CIA/military coup in Brazil of 1965. And I’m pretty sure she wasn’t working to help rural cooperatives, as was claimed. Historically the CIA’s relationship to rural cooperatives is to sic death squads on them. Someone like Gotbaum could collect the names of the victims to be targeted.
How ironic that Gotbaum herself was recently victimized by state violence when police in Arizona murdered her daughter-in-law. No, she didn’t “strangle herself with a chain” while her hands were cuffed behind her back. The cops got enraged at her screaming abuse at them so they shut her up, perhaps “overdoing” it. The question of what Gotbaum did in the CIA is something worth exploring. But it would take a serious publication to explore it.
—Jason Zenith, Chinatown

Give Me MOre Flavor
It may sound strange, but I was so excited to see the two lines of coke in the illustration for the new sex column contest (“Flavor of the Week,” Jan. 30-Feb. 5).

I don’t mean to sound like I think people should be snorting up the white stuff (although it does feel like everyone’s skiing the slopes when I’m waiting in line for the toilet at most bars), it’s just that it reminded me of some of the crazy things that the New York Press used to do.

We need a publication that’s willing to take some risks, do something a little different and not expected. Seems like most everyone these days is just interested in eating and shopping. How about a little down and dirty action?
—Sam Winston, Hell’s Kitchen

With Bated Breath
I can’t say that I don’t trust your movie reviewer Erik Kohn’s opinion because I’m not familiar with his track record of being able to accurately discern a good movie from a bad one. However, given the terrible review he gave The Air I Breathe, (“Breathless Cycle,” Jan. 23-29), I’m hoping that my investment in the tickets won’t be as total of a loss as Kohn makes the film out to be. Personally knowing the writer (Bob DeRosa) as an acquaintance, and having read and enjoyed one of the “Air” drafts several years ago before the film had even been cast, I’m really hoping the film isn’t that terrible. 

Without criticizing the reviewer for attacking a film I feel close to, for obvious reasons, I would like to point out one factual error that I believe the director would find offensive. Mr. Kohn refers to director Jieho Lee as a “she.” Given my personal connection to the film, however, I can assure you that Lee is, in fact, a man. I would appreciate it if you could somehow edit the article to reflect this fact. Should he find and read the review himself, it would only add insult to injury for him to not only have his first film torn to shreds, but also, to be mistaken for a woman because of his Korean name.
—Tiffiny Whitney, Los Angeles, CA