Mailbag

Mailbag

To celebrate the end of the glam rock, and the God talk, known as the Democratic and Republican Conventions, let’s dip into the mailbag. Here’s a general sampling of what fills my inbox, with my responses directly below.

1) Brenda from Abilene wrote, “Thank you, Mr. Josepher, for your series on the conventions. I lived through all the conventions you wrote about (except 1944), and I just don’t remember the details and nuances you provided. Plus, your characterizations made me laugh. Dan Quayle circling his boss George Bush like “a young warrior doing a war dance around his chief.” That’s funny. Thanks again.”

Brenda, my pleasure. But in the name of accuracy, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Elisabeth Drue characterized Dan Quayle’s reaction to being nominated for the vice presidency. I merely repeated Ms. Drue’s description, and I gave her credit.
     I offer this answer in light of the next question.

2) A fellow named Hank Holdsclaw took umbrage with my expert, Elisabeth Drue, and my “huge oversight,” in his words. Hank wrote, “It’s apropos. Today we have a senator running for president who was accused of plagiarism not too long ago. We have another senator running for vice president who admitted to plagiarism a few decades back. And you’ve put your faith in a journalist who won her Pulitzer Prize by plagiarizing the most famous investigative journalist of our day. Did she really think she could get away with it? Your huge oversight makes your entire convention series null and void.”

The backstory. Bob Woodward wrote a book called Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987. In that book, among the tales of attempted murders, payoffs to foreign leaders, covert aid to both the Contras of Nicaragua and the British in their “war” in the Falkland Islands, Woodward presents a deathbed interview with the director of the CIA from the 1980s, Bill Casey.
     In Elisabeth Drue’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Reagan’s World: The Unmasking of the 1980s, published after Woodward’s book, Drue presents certain comments supposedly made by Bill Casey on his deathbed. Drue did not credit Woodward. Only one journalist interviewed Casey on his deathbed, Bob Woodward. And so, when Drue’s book came out, the plagiarism charges picked up steam. The reading republic loves sordid tales (and Bob Woodward only writes sordid tales), which is what made the accusations of plagiarism so alluring.
     To be accurate, however, Elisabeth Drue did not give credit to Bob Woodward in her book because she didn’t need to. Elisabeth Drue never claimed to have interviewed the bedridden Bill Casey. She did, however, interview Casey’s wife, Sophia.
     Not only did Sophia Casey give Elisabeth Drue inside information, as best she knew it (Bill Casey apparently talked in his sleep), but according to Sophia Casey, Bill Casey never gave Bob Woodward a deathbed confessional. Woodward, according to Sophia Casey, invented the whole deathbed scenario scene.
     So there you have it, Hank Holdsclaw. As far as I can ascertain, Elisabeth Drue based her information on Sophia Casey, not Bob Woodward’s supposed interview of Bill Casey.
     It should also be noted. Elisabeth Drue has never admitted to plagiarism and the Pulitzer Prize committee, when rewarding the award, dismissed the charges.
     It should also be noted. Bob Woodward did not respond to my emails seeking his side of the story.

3) Continuing on with the convention series, S from Santa Monica commented on the last column in the series (“Don’t turn the delegates into robots,” September 5, 2008). S wrote, “That thing on Alexander Hamilton and the fungus—where do you get this stuff? Very funny! And John Davis? Who the hell was he—now I know. We certainly could have done without Coolidge—too bad. I just loved her [Elisabeth Drue’s] insights and historic comparisons—playboy Kennedy for example. I don’t think she was tough enough on McCain and Mrs. Moosehead—that’s got to be the most cynical, outright pandering bullshit choice anyone has made—ever! I’m ready to move to Denmark! But first I’ll send money to the Obama campaign—what else to do? CA is already for Obama—and NY for sure. I’m worried....”

You’re not alone in your worry, S. I’ve received numerous letters, mostly from women, expressing concern. But before we get ahead of ourselves, S., let’s take a moment and look at your history. Back in 1976, on the eve of the election, you paced through the house – or “brisked,” to use your word – uttering, “If Gerald Ford wins the election, we’re moving to Canada.”
     Jimmy Carter won the election. In hindsight, Gerald Ford was a far superior choice. He was the last president who knew how to work with congress. He also was the last Republican to serve the center. Thanks to the next Republican, the Christian right hijacked the party and now we live in the age of Christian fundamentalism. Which is a heck of a lot scarier than Muslim fundamentalism.
     But I digress. Let’s get back to your history, S. In 1980, on the eve of the elections, you told anyone who would listen, “If Ronald Reagan wins the election, we’re moving to Canada.”
     Ronald Reagan did win the election. We did not move to Canada.
     As the Reagan years ended you seemed to suffer from Ronny fatigue. You didn’t, for instance, threaten to move if George H.W. Bush won the election. Which he did. And then lost his reelection bid.
     In 2000, you were back however. “If George W. Bush wins the election,” you threatened, “we’re moving to Canada.”
     George W. Bush, of course, did win the election. We didn’t move to Canada.
     So now we have another threat. This time though you’ve given up on Canada. Why? What does Denmark offer that Canada cannot touch? And before answering, remember that Canada is just a drive away.

4) Let’s move on from the convention series. I received another email from one of my most favorite emailers. Madison, in Madison, wrote, “Dear Mr. Josepher, more than a month ago I wrote to you with a complaint and you even included it in your last mailbag column. My complaint, if you remember, is that you’d become too political. At that time, you were writing an Iran series. These past few weeks you’ve only written this convention series. What about the entertainment side of your column? I think you’ve neglected the fun of the column, particularly the ‘Ask B, Relationship Expert’ advice column.”

You win, Madison. Not only am I including an “Ask B” question here – although I’m warning you, my answer isn’t fun – but I promise to devote an entire column to “Ask B” this month.

Dear B,
I have been married for 14 years and have two wonderful boys, but my wife stopped loving me more than 10 years ago and has been romantically involved with another man for the last four years.
      I’ve accepted this state of affairs for the sake of my children’s happiness and because my wife and I, despite the lack of physical affection, still enjoy a friendly and stable relationship.
     But now, perhaps inevitably, I have met another woman. The closeness of this new friendship has, however, only served to illustrate the distance that exists in my marriage. My emotional life is suddenly in turmoil and I would welcome some advice on how I should deal with the situation.

These are the sorts of scenarios that drive a relationship columnist to drink, or tear out his/her hair, or to give up the relationship columnist game altogether. Let’s go back 14 years. It’s your wedding day. You’re out for a walk, trying to calm the nerves before the big event. A stranger comes up to you. He’s a little disheveled, peculiar, a bit grotesque even. He proceeds to prophesize. He predicts two children, boys. He predicts a 14-year marriage. He predicts ten loveless years of marriage. He predicts that you’ll stay in the relationship for the children. He predicts a long, long affair by your wife.
     What would your reaction be 14 years ago? To scoff at this soothsayer? To quickly walk away? Probably. But then as you walk away, you might say to yourself, “Well, I won’t let that happen. That sounds like a very unhappy life.”
     There’s a great word. It’s a word you know, judging from your writing style and obvious education. The word is cuckold. It means the husband of an adulteress, often regarded as an object of derision. It derives from the cuckoo’s habit of laying its egg in another bird’s nest.
     Of course you’ve now found a new friend. How predictable is that? My question would be: What took you so long? My second question would be: Do you often degrade yourself for the sake of your children? Do you think that’s a healthy image for your children to witness? Where’s your dignity?
     This emotional turmoil you’re now embroiled in; it’s your fault. You’ve created such a rigid entrapment for yourself. My advice? I don’t think you’re emotionally capable of leaving this marriage. I think there’s something in the family unit, something in your loveless relationship to your wife, that speaks to your greater psychology. You enjoy your cuckoldry. In fact, your new relationship will only encroach upon your enjoyment of your cuckoldry. Your new relationship will only bring unhappiness. So why are you injecting unhappiness into your life?
     Oh wait, that’s what you do. Unhappiness is your happiness.

5) Let’s move on to more sanguine subjects. I received an email from Lou, who happens to live in a place called Longmont, Colorado. He wrote, “We love you in Colorado. For a New York liberal, you’re okay. Now let’s drop all the political talk and get down to the key issue of the day. On paper, the Denver Broncos appear a little shaky, particularly coming off of last year’s debacle. I know you’re a diehard fan. What do you think of the team’s chances?”

That’s a tough one, Lou. As a diehard Bronco fan, I want to believe that a new season brings new promise of glory. As we all know, it’s been ten years since the glory of winning Super Bowls. It feels longer.
     I love the young talent on offense, and I think Shanahan should be praised for assembling it. I think the young talent also comes with a sense of veteran experience. Jay Cutler plays older than his years. On the field, Brandon Marshal seems older than his years (off the field is another story). Eddie Royal plays older than his years. The offensive line, with the addition of two young tackles, hopefully will play older than chronological age.
     The defense scares me, and I think Shanahan should be criticized for assembling the lack of talent. The NFL these days is all about pass rush. Can the Broncos pressure the opposing quarterback? That’s the big question.
     Also, you have to totally discount Monday night’s shellacking of the Raiders. That’s a bad team.
     So my prediction? The offense will be terrific, barring a Tom Brady-like injury. The defense will struggle. Can the offense outscore other teams? Can the defense somehow create enough turnovers to make up for its deficiencies?
     The optimist in me hopes for a 10-6 season, and a playoff birth. The realist? I think we’ll barely miss the playoffs.

One addendum to Question #3. S., it should be noted, is my mother.

Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email

Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web

The Gonzo Journalism of Brian Josepher

Mailbag