Subject: In regard to dumb blondes.
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:11:55 -0500
Dear Village Voice,
Excuse me for the delay, but I have been a bit backlogged lately. I am a busy man. A busy man with real concerns to address. The world is a complicated place that forces me to take action, accomplish tasks and reflect upon my surroundings. Yet, as busy as I am, I like to think my collected thoughts still manage to be coherent and well reasoned. So, if I can hold myself up to such standards, I would expect no less from a major media outlet such as, say, yourself. In fact, I am writing to you today to possibly open up an important channel of dialogue in regard to your intellectual credibility. I am writing to you today to discuss last week's cover article that proclaimed the death of the dumb blond. I was hoping to find some sort of well-reasoned, critical approach to the propagation and need for the dissolution of such a crude stereotype. Instead, I found a fluffy celebration in the guise of criticism. If I wanted to read mindless party banter I would have sought out a copy of Vice magazine. At least dumb blonds in Vice are naked and glossy. But really now, what on Earth were you thinking? Maybe you weren't thinking anything on Earth. Yes, for if you were thinking about anything on Earth you would have realized that there must have been something happening on Earth that is clearly more important than some hack's sly manifesto that glorifies and upholds that which he professes to denounce. Your journalism is little better than the pages of a supermarket tabloid. Michael Musto's celebration of the dumb blond is even worse than Playboy's new series of books in which they merely categorized all of womankind into three groups: blond, brunette and redhead. Unlike Playboy, who stopped there with the blatant commodification, you took it one full step further by attributing one of these superficial character traits a defined personality. If that was not bad enough, if enough damage was not done by drawing attention to this silly and arbitrary stereotype, you only went to once again further instill it into the popular zeitgeist by illustrating the stereotype in order to renounce it. It is almost as if you said the world can be broken up into animals, vegetables and minerals. And then you went on to elaborate that plants are bad photosynthesizers because many plants you know are turning brown. As such, they should break free from the stereotype of being bad photosynthesizers. Which means that you proved the stereotype in order to denounce it on its own ground rather than denouncing the need for the stereotype to begin with. In other words, to drive the point home once more, rather than saying that it would be ludicrous to label all plants as bad photosynthesizers, you said that plants should correct the stereotype of being bad photosynthesizers by learning how to become good photosynthesizers. The fact that such an article could be a cover story is mind blowing. Then again, maybe I shouldn't complain that the free newspaper is functioning on a forth grade level. Maybe I shouldn't complain, but I am going to complain because this free, so-called newspaper likes to brand itself as one of the last vestiges of intelligent liberal-leaning media. In fact, I noticed that you like to go out of your way to reaffirm your left-wing ideology. Take for instance the comic strip "Search and Destroy" that you managed to cram under the article about why PBS is seemingly ripping the current administration a new one. This cartoon, captioned "Evolution of the Left," seems to basically have two agendas. The first is proclaiming that the new generation of left wing activists are now a bunch of passive, television-watching, cry babies in "anti-W" t-shirts. And the second objective is to glorify the grand old days of the sixties by claiming that there used to be some vestige of dignity. Don't get me wrong, today's generation will never compare to those of the fifties and sixties and quite frankly, I am glad of this. Let's face it, the baby boomers all became yuppies and/or self-involved consumers in the end. Under their watch, any progressive legislation that may have been enacted on account of their revolutionary antics and more importantly, any depression era social institutions that they were entrusted with were ultimately quashed by the right wing politics of the past two decades. So, what is accomplished by rehashing the public imagination of the supposed heyday of revolutionary politics? Very little of consequence because the damage has already been done on their watch while the generation they belittle was too young to interject on their own behalf. Instead of dwelling upon spilt milk, we should bring up some other interesting facts about the sixties. Why don't we mention that the largest musical hit of the decade was "The March of the Green Beret?" I'm guessing that your publication doesn't want people to believe that the country was as conservative and divided then as it is now. And I'm writing to tell you that the country is not as passive now as you want us to believe either. Some days ago there was the largest march on Washington in over thirty years. Having worked on a loading dock, I would venture to say that it is difficult, if not impossible, to transport that many thousands of couches carrying that many young adults clad in "anti-W" t-shirts to our nation's capital. I suppose this means that all of those passive caricatures must have gotten off their lazy asses to prove Ted Rall wrong. In fact, the current generation of young adults are probably better informed and more politically active than any generation that has come before them. My only complaint with the new generation of left-wing troublemakers is that they continue rehashing the ineffective techniques of social unrest that rose to popularity in the sixties rather than doing something proactive to spur social change. Who knows, maybe if they stopped gathering en masse to wave their fist in the air like the good old days, they might actually accomplish something. If anything, constantly reincarnating the myth of sixties radicalism is more of a hindrance than a helping hand. I suppose the only reason the Village Voice keeps invoking images of the sixties is because it is more concerned with the fashion of the left rather than the actual ideology. Your magazine is rife with mindless left-wing propaganda and at the same time seemingly empty of anything that could be construed as a proactive social message. As such, the best course of action would be to admit that the Village Voice is tired and mishandled by a bunch of confused left-wing crackpots and hand it over to some fresh young girls and boys whose brains, albeit shiny and new, are more developed than prepubescent genitalia. Yes, I am saying that the current writing and editorial staff has brains about as developed as prepubescent genitalia. More importantly, I would like to state that I am making this assessment without knowing the color of their hair.
Citizen of the West Village