Using the word Jew is not anti-Semitism: Wow. I complain that you called Joe Weinberger "One Live Jew," so you then call me "One Livid Jew" (Letters, August 17)! How can you be so presumptuous as to postulate my religion? Don't you think that all citizens, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, et cetera, can take umbrage at anti-Semitism (and antianything else that is hateful and ignorant and divisive)?
Even if you thought you had evidence that in fact I was Jewish, my religion was not germane to my letter, and tagging the letter-writer with a religion was as bad as tagging Weinberger with one. I recognize that once again it is "clever" to change "One Live" to "One Livid," but as I said, being clever is no excuse.
Burnett Radosh
Lighthouse Point
Pollack, Dali, Schacknow!
Don't hold your breath waiting for a retraction: I read Michael Mills' review of the Schacknow Museum in the current issue of New Times ("The Traveling Schacknow Show," August 17). I am really quite shocked at his impressions. I wonder what he would have written if he were the first to review Jackson Pollack or Salvador Dali. I don't know what his credentials are, but I have been a student of art all of my life.
I have been a member of the Metropolitan in New York. I have visited the Prado, the Louvre, the Hermitage, and other museums the world over. I have seen artwork that I could not believe was on the walls of a museum, but I respected the work of the artists.
I, as a layperson, attended the opening of the latest showing at the Schacknow Museum of Fine Art, at which there were approximately 400 persons in attendance, and the comments were especially positive. Most everyone enjoyed the presentation.
What gives Mills the authority to denigrate a person like Max Schacknow, who is trying to help those with artistic ability with his money and attention? It seems to me that to put down the efforts being expended by Max Schacknow is an extremely nasty and rude attempt to somehow "get even" with him.
I believe a retraction to the Schacknow Museum and Mr. Schacknow is in order.
Muriel Israel
Lauderhill
Harvey Resorts to Name-Calling
We Republican cretins are offended: When I saw the front-page headline "One Live Jew" (Tristram Korten, August 10), I expected to read about Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
And, try as I did, I saw nothing in the lengthy aforementioned article about the Jewishness of the target of the piece, Joe Weinberger.
So, perhaps the bigots at New Times can tell me why the term Jew was used in the headline of this story? In the same edition, when you wrote about the cell phone antics of powerful Broward commissioner Lori Parrish, you didn't call the article "One (tele)phoney shiksa [non-Jewish woman] did you? Of course not!
And in Undercurrents, when you wrote about a Cuban PAC group, you didn't call the article "One Live Spic," did you? Of course not! So why mention Joe Weinberger's Jewishness, when not one word of the nasty innuendo you called a story had anything to do with his religious preference?
And I thought only Republicans were racist, bigoted, subhuman cretins. I was wrong!
Harvey Slavin
Hollywood
New Times Attacks Motherhood and the American Way
We do give a rat's anus about who pays her bills: I can't believe you put [Broward County commissioner] Lori Parrish in your crosshairs ("Reach Out and Put the Touch on Someone," Bob Norman, August 10)! Although the photo The Miami Herald supplied you was quite good, are things so journalistically challenged at New Times that you're going after the mother of Broward County?
Frankly I don't give a rat's anus if she has phone sex with her husband throughout the day, so long as her responsibility to county business is satisfied. On the subject of county business, she expends more energy in one day than her colleagues do all week. If her friends want to contribute to her campaign without a detailed summary of expenditures, is that not the American way?
John Gabon
Plantation
