for 1 July 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Hit & Run

You assert that "most of the
population would prefer to
see Suck edited more
heavily." Somehow you have
allowed your optimism and
your arrogance to coexist.
"Most of the world has heard
of us, but most of the world
can't understand us and is so
frustrated that they want us
to go away!" The deeper I
look into your warped
psychology, the more afraid I
am. And yet I can't help but
read your daily rantings.
Which one has the worse
problem: the readers of Suck
or the writers of Suck?

Erich Von Hollander
<hh@xcf.berkeley.edu>

Have you noticed that your
name rhymes with
"collander"?

It really amuses me to
witness crackpot left-wing
conspiracy theories in person
(or what passes for it in
cyberspace).

So, you would have me believe
that some 27-year-old buyer
at Amalgamated Book
Industries spends her day ...
(I'm trying here) ... let's
see ... devising ways of
dumbing down her customers
... with books. Instead of
trying to figure out what
books might sell the best.

"Mary, what have you done
here!? These books aren't
dumb enough! We need more
books that destroy IQ and
induce apathy! Our
book-buying, book-reading
customers must be made to
acquiesce to our dastardly
corporate power!"

I mean, I remember product
differentiation, price
differentiation, product life
cycles, and all that. I just
don't remember correlating
customer stupidity with
profit. Never once heard an
ex-CEO tell me after class,
with a wink and a nudge, that
the real key to success is
to somehow succeed in
altering the minds of the
customer and then
reprogram them to buy
Sugar Doodles and watch
American Journal.

Sure, smokey. Keep yapping.

Tom Castle
<tom@asizip.com>

Gaining market share isn't
about altering the minds of
the customer, but it most
definitely is about catering
to the weakest, slowest,
basest part of those minds.
Because stuff that caters to
this segment of the brain,
which is known as the
Consumall stem, is the stuff
that sells.

More Sugar Doodles, please.

Good Old Tabacky

Dear Sucksters:

If you have any interest in
further covering the tobacco
settlement quagmire, today's
LA Times' coverage might
merit your attention.

It's no secret to the free
world that the tobacco
industry is an invidious
entity bulging with profits.
It's also no secret that a
big money grab is underway,
from the Feds to the states
to the poor, abused lifelong
smokers who now want to be
reimbursed for the lung
cancer. ("I honestly believed
that smoking 50,000
cigarettes wouldn't adversely
affect my health, your Honor.
Little did I know that those
bastards were lying to
Congress!")

The bottom line is, these
people agreed to a settlement
a year ago, then the
demogogy and grandstanding
toppled the damned thing.
Washington seems to be aging
quicker than a rotten lung.
The baby boomers have
ossified and are convinced
that a "take that out of your
mouth" (cigarettes, booze,
marijuana) policy constitutes
effective domestic policy.

As for me, I say fuck 'em.
Their zealous pursuit of cash
for lame TV spots has become
uglier than Monica L.'s
Vanity Fair photos. I'll vote
the "throw the bums out"
ticket (and for that bore
Gray Davis, I suppose).

Incidentally, your columns
have been especially rich
lately. Thank you for being a
voice of sanity.

Cheers,

Jay Burnley
<Jay.Burnley@hbo.com>

We're the voice of sanity?

That is really unhappy news.
We thought we were the voice
of bitterness, alienation,
and mental instability.

Please, rethink your views on
this.

P. S. Monica looks sort of
sexy, in a flat-footed,
munchkin-handed kind of way.

Filler

A PR person once called me
back after I interviewed a
CEO and said, "I just want to
follow up now that you've had
a chance to get some
knowledge nuggets from our
thought leader."

OK, so it's not a metaphor.
But it's a heck of a buzz
phrase.

Whit Andrews
<whit@iw.com>

"Knowledge nuggets"? Do those
come in 6- or 12- packs?

Subject: Overprofessionalism
sloganeering

Please, please, please do not
become another Scott Adams.
We do not need to see any
more inane "Corporate culture
... wotta riot!" features on
a regular basis.

Besides that, keep up the
good work.

Joe Garden, Temporary
<j-garden1@nwu.edu>

Your concerns are duly noted.
However,
slogans/buzzwords/corporate
culture versus metaphors
employed by new-media
peoples: Different. Little,
yellow, different. Sort of
different. Kind of.

I would never try to steal
Scott Adams' real estate. I
think Dilbert is pretty
fucking funny, actually, but
then I've worked in several
offices that employed
cartoonishly annoying
imbeciles.

Tune in next week for my
caustic take on those pesky
self-involved college drama
students that we all love to
hate!

Filler: Custom-made to suit
your particular bag of
gripes.

Polly