Think about it I found it amusing that Tim Marchman ...

it

I found it amusing that Tim Marchman ranted against the Village Voice's pro-choice clichés, yet himself uses the oldest cliché of all in his response: "I am appalled?that our country is one of the few to allow abortion on demand." ["The Voice Loses It," Nov. 23].

He apparently has not given any thought whatsoever to what he is saying: There is no such thing as "abortion on demand," a propaganda term used by those who oppose abortion and intended to conjure up the image of a strident woman marching into an abortion clinic and "demanding" an abortion. That's absurd. An abortion is a medical procedure. A woman would no more "demand" an abortion than she can "demand" a root canal or the removal of a lump from her breast. ÊHow does "appendectomy on demand" sound? A little stupid, no? Why is it that access to no other medical procedure is defined this way except abortion? Think about it.

The Roe decision does limit access to abortion in the second trimester (to preserve the life or health of the woman) and in the third trimester (to protect potential human life).

Most states have regulated access to abortion in one way or another, particularly for minors. This certainly does not sound like "abortion on demand" to me.

But the unkindest cut of all is perpetuating the thinking that a woman will walk into an abortion clinic when she is seven or eight months pregnant and "demand" an abortion. That is absurd on the face of it. No physician would perform an abortion on a perfectly healthy woman carrying a perfectly healthy fetus. In those instances when abortions do become necessary late in a pregnancy, it is a tragedy for the family. No woman carries a pregnancy for that long and then on a whim waltzes into an abortion clinic because she's had a bad-hair day. She has planned for her baby. She has bought baby clothes, furniture, a stroller and painted a room. She's picked out a name, had the sonogram framed and bought teddy bears. She is expecting a baby, not the unbelievable announcement by her doctor that her baby has no brain and can't possibly survive but a few hours after birth. Or that she has a fast-growing cancer that will kill her before she can deliver if the cancer isn't treated; and, unfortunately, the treatment will kill the fetus. These are heart-rending situations. To label them as "abortion on demand" is cruel and unthinking. IÊwould hope the next time the author writes about this issue, he will refrain from using terminology that stereotypes and defames women.

Barbara Santee, Ph.DTulsa, Oklahoma

THE EDITORS REPLY:

Given the absence of any relation between Ms. Santee's examples and Tim Marchman's column, it should suffice that any one who claims to be anti-cliché and then labels a third trimester fetus, viable outside of the womb, as "potential human life" is not to be taken seriously. Hint: She compares abortions to root canals and appendectomies. That's not cool, kids.

BOSS LOVER BITCHES

So Jonathan Leaf doesn't like Bruce Springsteen. ["Born To Run, 30 Years Later," Nov. 23]. Fair enough. Springsteen's an acquired taste. Still, since Leaf devoted an entire essay to the topic, I'd have hoped for a modicum of informed critique rather than a half page of false profundities about "selling hokum." (I'd love to know which songwriter, in Leaf's estimation, does not sell hokum.)

Despite condemning Springsteen's oeuvre, Leaf backs his claim that Bruce was a liar with a mere three lines from "Born to Run." He chides the Boss for referring to his hometown of Freehold as a "death trap" and desiring to "get out while we're young," then follows with a line of his own that almost made me choke when I read it: "Everyone from New Jersey knows that the shore is a great place to be young."

This could only have come from someone raised well north of the Raritan. To back his claim, he cites the beach, the jobs and (incongruously) access to college. Leaf seems to equate economic security with adolescent happiness. As a native Spring Laker, I'll grant him the beach, if only for four months a year. Those of us who didn't grok the strict class and racial codes that characterize winter life at the shore longed for more than employment. Springsteen gave voice to that ambition and that's what made him authentic.

Leaf accuses the Boss of disingenuousness while himself feigning a grasp of Garden State culture. He suggests that Red Bank qualifies as a shore town-when even a cursory amble along Front Street reveals more in common with New Hope or Salem than any of the boardwalk locales of Springsteen lore. This was true even before its late-'80s gentrification. He also says that there are no "unemployed actors, writers and dancers" working at any of the shore's restaurants, as though New York has a monopoly on this demographic. But the dead giveaway is in the last line, when Leaf calls Springsteen's work "as real as most of the blonde locks you see on the beach in Seaside Heights or Deal." Did Leaf pull out a map of Jersey and pick the first oceanfront town he saw north of Belmar? Whatever are locks are found on the beach in Deal belong to the millionaires fortunate enough to have oceanfront access in the famously exclusive borough. He could not have picked a less representative town if he tried.

Kevin Ford, Belleville, NJ

Jonathan leaf replies:

I thank Mr. Ford for his response.

But he's certainly wrong about several things. First, I did grow up south of the Raritan. Second, the Jersey shore wasn't an exclusive enclave of the rich in the '70s-as it isn't now. And if Springsteen wasn't talking about this region, why did he sing about it (even calling his first album, let's recall, Greetings From Asbury Park)? But I do confess to a significant error in my article.

Springsteen's collaboration with Patti Smith was on his schlock anthem "Because the Night," not his schlock anthem "Bring on The Night." The similarity in titles and sound in the two songs gets to a larger point I omitted, though: Springsteen constantly plagiarizes, if most often himself. "Born To Run" and "Born in the USA"; "Blinded by the Light," "Bring on the Night" and "Spirits in the NIght"; "I'm on Fire" and "Fire." Then, of course, there are the obviously imitative Springsteen songs like "Dancing in the Dark," where the Boss rehashed older melodies-but couldn't even come up with a new title!

A chilling effect, our ass

Bret Liebendorfer deserves kudos for promoting dumpster diving in the unfortunately titled "Freegans and Other Freaks," [Nov. 23] but should take his own advice on "painful lack of discretion."

I was a participant in Freegan.info's planning meeting and "trash tour," which Bret attended, never disclosing his status as a journalist, despite an unambiguous admonition on the event's promotional flyer (where Bret learned of the event) prohibiting reporters from the meeting. Bret gave every impression of simply being a participant-taking on volunteer tasks at the meeting and hauling off a huge bag of dumpstered goodies from the tour. Even if he decided to write the story after participating, he acted in bad faith by not contacting attendees and asking for their permission to have their closed meeting represented in an article.

According to the Society for Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, "Journalists should?avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public."

What vital information was yielded by infiltrating the meeting-that activists aren't always punctual? That's hardly headline news.

The Code continues, "Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."

Bret makes much of the event's promo flyer inviting media to the tour, but omits mentioning that the flyer prohibited journalists from the meeting.

Had Bret disclosed his status as a journalist, he could have asked questions and avoided factual errors. He refers to the filmmakers documenting the tour as "NYU students," and snidely suggests that they "lived up to their school's reputation for attracting the sheltered, spoiled and naïve." These film students were from City College, but why let facts get in the way of snarkiness? Their film is described as a "student exploitation production." Yet the students made no secret of their role as documentarians, and honored a request to not attend closed meetings.

If Bret wanted to avoid cameras, the same flyer mentioned other tours that were closed to media in deference to people who don't want to be featured in journalistic accounts, a detail his article ignored. A reporter could infiltrate these events, but journalistic ethics should prevent this. Bret has set a precedent whereby no one can come to future events, even those closed to media, with the assurance that they will not end up in a media account. Hopefully, this won't have a chilling effect on participation.

Adam Weissman, New Jersey

THE EDITORS REPLY:

Weissman is right about the CUNY?NYU distinction. Doubtless we got the exact nature of the culture-slumming wrong, and our apologies for that.

Otherwise, though, this is nonsense. Citing journalistic ethics, a made-up art at best, is a joke, nor do we feel we've anything to apologize for. Rather, our man, a longtime activist who has dumpster-dived in other states, went to this event and, yes, ate trash from dumpsters. We really need to start paying this guy.

Bret saw much absurdity in having a press event dedicated to his activity-on the same flyer that mentioned the closed-door event!-and wrote an article making that clear. As to the closed-door request, we see no reason why such cultish secrecy should be honored. It reminds of nothing so much as the White House's required voluntary non-leak pledges. What horseshit. What happens in New York at public meetings is news. If it's worth writing about, we'll write about it.

Most significantly, Bret didn't hide. In the course of talking with other garbage-consumers, he made no secret of his work for the paper. He just didn't fax in a form or stand on a box and yell it out.

Weissman goes on: Instead of attending only the propaganda session, our man went to an actual meeting and, worse still, made himself useful, he complains. What treachery!

We'd suggest that instead of such mewling, Weissman reread the column (and Bret's fine cover story on the same subject in Columbus Alive).

Weissman should be honored to have had his dumpster-diving ways considered in a paper as esteemed as New York Press, and in the only food section in town brave enough to have written up the Bellevue Hospital Cafeteria and, in this week's number, the Jihad cocktail.

As to the chilling effect you fear, we take that as proof that you damn hippies are no better than the corporate whores you protest against. Speaking of whores, in our experience, when they put out ads, they don't then complain when clients call because of them. What, what?

the postmaster cometh

Congrats to the new editorship, who convinced "Smugger" he was writing the back page of The New Republic ["Junior Says Uncle," Nov. 23]. Please Mr. Smith, you have nothing to say, and you don't know how to say it, so go away. Your defense of the present administration is so out-of-touch with reality, and your attacks on the Times et al are so tired, boring and wrong-headed. But there's still time to catch the train to Baltimore-I hear the Sun is looking for a good caption writer.

Robert Liebowitz (AKA The Postmaster), via email

PROBABLY

Alphonse X. Alfonso is probably a stupid homo with a stupid name and is probably your only source of support in favor of doing away with Wiggles and you just had to jump at the chance to publish this uptight, pretentious, however, kind-of-funny dickhead's letter ["Universal Replacement," Soapboxing, Nov. 23]. If you had any balls, even little ones, you would publish my letter in support of bringing Wiggles back.

Vincent Mayta, via email

C-List Splendor

Dear God-you're on to something here. ["Smarminess Lives," David Thorpe, Nov. 23].

Counterpoint: VH1 is cool. It is super-cool. Here's the thing that makes it so cool: While we're wondering whatever happened to our god damn lives, all of our icons from the era are tastefully re-emerging to let us know that it is OK to be a C-list celebrity and it's OK to have a C-list life. That's the beauty and comfort of VH1.

MTV has been outgrown, and is now targeting our little brothers and sisters. I have to admit, though, that "Next" is a guilty pleasure. They have gay "Next" episodes. That's mind-blowing, huh? Would not have been tolerated in the '90s? What have we moved on to since the grunge movement and shitty LSD of the '90s?

Vh1 is really more up my alley, though. We all watched wondered what happened to Ron Jeremy-well, he's on VH1. Tammy Faye kicked cancer's ass and they couldn't shake her religion on "The Surreal Life". And let's not forget the spin offs. Flav is the biggest comeback of all time.

Ben Stiller invented the concept of reality TV with Reality Bites. We made this shit. (Fuck you, "Survivor.") So it's ours, it's cool, and all our old friends have made their comebacks. What are we telling ourselves when we watch them for the second or third time around? We are telling ourselves, quite cleverly, that we are ready to make our own comebacks. In that strange reanimalization between our late twenties and our forties we are finding our way to ambition again. Did you fuck your life up on drugs? So did Danny Bonaduce and Flav. But by God, they've made a comeback-can we? That's why we watch. Did you fuck up your marriage that you never should have gotten into? There's hope for you. Because Christopher Knight (Peter Fucking Brady), just snagged the hottest woman humanly possible. It's not just her looks either, it's the personality, the willingness to believe no matter what people say. Tell me that you didn't cry when Christopher Knight busted out with the ring. Tell me that and I will come to your house and kiss your ass in front of a video camera.

I for one, still believe we're going to be something great. That's what we're telling ourselves. VH1 is helping us to look over and accept the things that didn't go as planned and to look forward and still believe and hope that great things lie ahead. There's nothing wrong with that, now is there? Don't piss on my dreams just yet.

The irony of the C-list celebrity comeback is that they will always be A-list novelties in our hearts. What does VH1 give us? A little piece of our youth, reinvented-been through rehab, crow's feet around the eyes, but doing just fine. It lets us know-so are we.

Let's face it, most of us are not A-list people. We don't look like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, we can't even act like them. But maybe we shouldn't idolize them. Maybe we should get some of our old toys out of the toy box. Ken and Barbie have been remade so many different times that it's the same shit with a new theme. It's time to get out our Ron Jeremy, Danny Bonaduce and Tammy Faye. We've forgotten how great they are and why we loved them. Like a song that reminds you of a place and time that you haven't heard since you were a freshman.

Admit it, you liked it then, you love it now. VH1 is awesome.

JWB, via email

PUT IT TO USE

The Ask Dr. Dot column has been great. Whether it be sex advice, or just relationship advice, it is advice that is real and can actually work. Usually you read these kinds of columns and the advice that they give you is something that you can't really do, but with Dot, it's real. There have been a lot of questions that are similar to ones I have, and I have been able to take the advice and put it into good use.

Kathleen Del Rossi

LIKE IT IS

It is nice to finally have a woman tell it like it is and not sugar coat everything just to make it easier on our egos. People need to hear the truth, not be coddled and deluded. Dr. Dot is hot, honest and hilarious. And that is a very rare find these days. Appreciate her while you can.

Lorraine S., via email

THE REAL CHARLATANS

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has never claimed to be a reincarnation of anyone ["A Pious Old Goat," Lincoln MacVeagh, Oct. 23]. Instead, like Christ, who never told anyone that he was the son of God, Tenzin Gyatso was declared the 14th Dalai Lama by the religious leaders of his country.

The fact that His Holiness wishes to be included in scientific debate is because much of Buddhist (as well as Hindu) philosophy is composed of ideas and beliefs which are very much in line with many of the theories and discoveries of modern science. The only difference being that Hindus and Buddhists were talking about many of these things thousands of years before anyone in the West even thought about them.

The objections that many people have to a man like the Dalai Lama taking part in a conference about neuroscience has to do with the mistaken (primarily Western) notion that science must be devoid of spirituality. But this notion is losing its strength in the face of discoveries in the West, which have proven many of the Lamas and Gurus of the East right about their own ideas concerning- among other things- the nervous system, notably the brain.

I could say more, but it most likely wouldn't make a difference, especially not to a person like Mr. MacVeagh, who has already decided that modern science is 'serious business,' despite the fact that so much about the human body, most notably the brain, remains unexplained. If more people were aware of how little neurosurgeons actually know, we would all know who the real charlatans are.

Peter Reyes, via email

SPIELBERG IS NUMBER ONE

Armond White needs to chill out ["Smugnesss," Nov. 23] Really. His fatuous rants against the "media elite" combined with his conflicted laundry list of issues is always entertainingly wrong, but c'mon: Has this guy even checked out what Americans are actually watching outside his rarefied critics circle? Here's a reminder, courtesy of IMDB:

380,262,555 Star Wars: Episode 3

234,249,189 War of the Worlds

208,668,462 Wedding Crashers

206,278,008 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

205,343,774 Batman Begins

193,136,719 Madagascar

186,301,615 Mr. & Mrs. Smith

177,575,142 Hitch

158,115,031 The Longest Yard

154,637,451 Fantastic Four

Seems pretty "populist" to me.

J. Annum, via email

WINNING OVER THE SOCIAL CRITIQUE WORLD

I just wanted to say how refreshing Armond White's voice is. Every week I learn from his column. Will there be another book from him soon? The social critique world needs you now more than ever.

What a coincidence that you mentioned Metropolitan in your dispatch on smugness, because I just watched that movie for the first time last night. Your recognition of Whit Stillman's "sympathy" for his characters is correct. He loves his characters. He doesn't condemn any of them. He doesn't look down on them. This is a trait that shared by the great Mike Leigh and Terrance Davies as well.

I write for pleasure, and I always use White's writing as a model.

White is fantastic-give him two columns a week.

Mark Osborn, Austin, TX