for 20 November 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Ad Infinitum

Subject: Election commentary

What? No mention of medical
marijuana passing on every
ballot initiative? Even in
places like Colorado and D.C.
where conservatives
"nullified" the vote counts?
Surely you missed a chance to
support a good cause and make
conservatives look stupid.

Laura Spitz
<laspitz@home.com>

Laura:

Couple things. First, we're
not about making
"conservatives" look stupid.
We're about making everybody
look stupid. Or, more
accurately, that's what
"everybody" is about, we're
just paying attention to the
man behind the curtain.

Second, regarding the
medicinal-marijuana
initiative in D.C., we (cough
cough), we ... um ... what
were we just talking about?

Passing the douche on both
the left- and the right-hand
side,

James

The Fisher King

I always found it far more
amusing when you simply
slagged the poor bastards who
got emotional enough about
your articles to reply.
Although considered answers
may be more entertaining for
them, for those of us simply
looking for a cheap laugh
your insolence was quite
satisfying. So how about a
little more abuse??

respectfully.

Jamie Fischer
<j1sk@hotmail.com>

OK. Fuck off.

Pest Control

Unlike the Teeming Millions,
I heartily approve of your
name. A perfectly cogent
moniker for sassy,
politically oriented screeds.

Don't change a thing, kids.

Jan.Koloen@legis.state.wi.us

Actually, I heard the
dollar-chasers in the Suck ad
department were rallying hard
for a name change that would
lead to greater mainstream
accessibility and even
commissioned several surveys
and focus groups, the outcome
of which was to slightly
morph the name from "SUCK" to
"SLICK" - a little
deconstruction of the "U"
being all that was necessary.
Luckily, www.slick.com is
already taken by "America's
premiere lampoon," the Slick
Times, so the name Suck
stays.

Even so, we need more letters
like yours to keep the ad
staff in its place. Thanks.

Huck

Dear Suck--

Peter Biskind's good book,
Seeing is Believing, discussed
the political dynamics of
'50s bug movies. According to
Biskind, the Eisenhower
regime was a coalition
government; though we think
of it today as a long
Republican nap, President Ike
supposedly held the course
between extreme right-wing
tendencies and liberal
pinksters. The sci-fi bug
movie, Biskind argues, always
replayed those political
tensions, leaning to the left
or to the right depending on
the directors involved.
You'll remember the plot of
The Thing, et al.: Bug
arrives. A scientist always
wants to let the bugs run
roughshod over the Earth, so
he can study them; a general
always wants to nuke 'em till
they glow and then shoot 'em
in the dark. Together the
general and the scientist
agree on a method, using some
science and some force to
destroy the bugs. At the end,
intellectuals and military
men shake hands on a good
day's work, over the charred
corpse of the communist
insect. I'm mentioning all of
this because the current
bug-hunts (say Armageddon,
Starship Troopers) are all
force and no science,
reflecting the right-wing,
force-crazed corporate
ideology of those who made
the movies. (Of course, Deep
Impact was more of a New Age
fiasco, claiming we could
overcome the aliens if we
just loved ourselves and our
families more ...). Call Antz
a summons to the cubicle
farm, but it's the only movie
this year that had the phrase
"The workers own the means of
production" in it. I know, it
was only a joke ... the
phrase "It Was Only a Joke"
ought to be the official
motto of the 20th century. By
the way, did you guys read
the Mr. Mike biography yet?

Sincerely yrs,
<RegisGoat@aol.com>

Regis,

Interesting point about the
lack of science in
Armageddon and Starship
Troopers, neither of which
I've seen so I'll take your
word that they don't
contain a kindly,
intellectual, but instead a
suspiciously European
scientist of the kind that
counterbalanced the
red-white-and-blue military
types in Them! Maybe the
scientists are too busy with
the Outbreak-genre of bug
movies these days....

Huck

impressive. i dodged a yellow
jacket on my lunch break, and
now i feel all inspired to go
step on woody allen and suck
an egg. but first i'd better
finish my cricket-salad
sammich, eh?

wannabe nova scotian
<bsettles@depauw.edu>

you're being a bit too
ambitious, i think. forget
the egg and the sandwich, and
focus on allen. even so, i
doubt your stomps will do
much to eliminate him or even
slow his output; even in his
twilight years, he appears as
hardy and ineradicable as a
cockroach.

huck

Ad Infinitum

Subject: I can't believe ...

... you used the word
"cojones" in your 6 November
1998 Suck ever since I saw
it used on some sitcom
commercial. (I can't remember
what sitcom or what network
for that matter. How's that
for successful advertising?)

To follow this tired path,
could you use "hella cool"
(http://www.comedycentral.com/
southpark/elementary/
popquiz.shtml) in your next
Suck?

Tony
<tonysebion@tensionboy.com>

Dear Tony,

No.

Subject: Pundit

You gotta come up with a new word
for "pundit." "Pundit" is
used by William Safire, so it
must be really stupid.

How about "blowhard?"

Or maybe "self-described
know-it-all?"

Regards,

Andy
<andyross@pacbell.net>

Andrew:

I agree, a new term is in
order; "pundit" is played. It
might be more accurate to
specify a unique term for each particular
pundit (e.g., compromised
GOP lapdog spotted at a
spring-training titty bar
(George Will);
tree trunk-legged, smug-fuck
Hobbit professionally
betraying/defending the
cad-hick who gave him a life
(George Snuffleupagus);
bottle-blond Republican
chickie valiantly sleeping
her way to the middle (take
your pick) ...

Let's work on it. That ends
up being too many words on
the screen, maybe ...

TV adds 10 pounds, James