for 26 February 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

The Suck Book

I went out and bought the
book. I think you guys
deserve it. And I am not
sorry I did.

Too bad I did not understand
half of what was there! I do
not read Suck that often, but
when I do, I usually find it
very entertaining,
irreverent, and not too
demanding. The book is very
different. Granted, I am not
from this country, I do not
watch TV, and many of the
cultural references are hard
for me to understand, but I
found the book boring. So can
you please publish another
book, EZ Suck, which will
have more cartoons and less
of deep thinking?

I will buy it.

Peace,
Pavel Plachky
<pavel@earthling.net>

Naturally we understand and
support your request for less
of deep thinking.

Look for less of deep
thinking in the near future.

On that note ...

Subject: A topical poem for
your consideration

"The President's Pee-Pee,"
by Jeffrey Seeds

The president's pee-pee was
  discussed on the news,
Reporters were shameless, as
  if drunk on booze,
Tabloid journalism ran all amuck,
But I don't care who the
  president fucked.

Every TV channel pre-empted
  its shows,
To broadcast again
  what everybody knows,
It won't stay in the pants,
  that's the way it's made,
But I don't care who the
  president laid.

Republicans circled and
  prayed in church,
For horny Bill to fall from his perch,
Ken Starr inquisitioned and
  Newt just mooed,
But I don't care who the
  president screwed.

Pollsters polled and pundits
  punted,
Saddam smiled and the
  Pope just grunted,
Bumper stickers commanded it,
   so many horns honked,
But I don't care who the
  president bonked.

The right went wild and the
  left shut up,
The world stared at his
  zipper when Bill stood up,
The nation debated and
   discussed and called,
But I don't care who the
  president balled.

With so many words to
  describe this thing,
That they do in Moscow
  and they do in Beijing,
Though Puritan culture
  says it shouldn't be allowed,
I really, truly, honestly
   don't care who the president plowed.

Jeffrey A. Seeds
<u1011094@warwick.net>

Work on your meter and get
back to us.

Filler Filler

Subject: I've gotta have a
Filler book!

Polly, Polly, Polly!

I've written before about my
methhead-like need for a
Filler book, and how weak it
was to have you represented
like a sucka in the Suck
book, but, man, these dating
columns of yours have pushed
me to a whole new level
(like, a crackhead level). I
mean, shit, man, it's so damn
funny! Never have I seen a
Matt Groening bit
appropriated with such verve,
such je ne sais
quoi/cojones/chutzpah/balls!
Phew! Your shit's da bomb,
baby. It's gotten so the Suck
book I have is like nothing
more than an angry rebuke to
my impotent yearning....

So, anyway, I just wanted to
let you know that: (choose
one)

a) You rule, b) I want, no,
need (like a crackhead,
remember?) that Filler book,
c) I'm a psycho stalker and
I'm watching you right now,
and d) a and b

The correct answer is d.

Later,
David H. Your number 1 fan
(send presents)

I'm glad to see that there
may, in fact, be a strong
market for EZ Suck: Less of
Deep Thinking. As the
self-proclaimed center of the
Less of Deep Thinking
Movement, I can think
(shallowly) of nothing better
than a book of Filler.
Especially if it doesn't
include the boring ones that
aren't funny.

Your support, however
crack-addled, is greatly
appreciated.

Polly

P. S. You've got it all
wrong. The fan is the one
who's supposed to send the
presents.

Nasty Habits

Subject: PSAs suck

Kudos to you, who boldly
singes the feathers of my
most hated enemies:
Microsoft, Disney, and AOL.

I must be leaving now, before
the five o'clock robot parade
comes through and takes my
children for these slanderous
words against the state.

Tristan Tomaselli
<tristan@servtech.com>

'Twas nothin' - those are the
feathers of sitting ducks. I
only wish someone like the
Nature Conservancy would join
the PSA club, just to make
things difficult.

Don't forget to separate
blondes and browns for
curbside pick-up,

DJ Abe

Yeah! Right On, Brother! FREE
ARTHUR LEE!

Incidentally, a friend is
currently researching the
feasibility of small-time Net
porn by setting up "humorous"
Web sites - i.e., (faked-up)
Hutchence death-scene tribute
site, Monica Lewinsky Naked
site (utter hoax) - and even
though none of them deliver
anything save for scathing
scorn, we sit back, light up
a fatty, and watch the
counters fly.

But that's people for ya.

Nice One,
Ace

I'm impressed by the
willingness of people to pay
in advance for what they know
they can't have. In some
ways, it's a perfect
transaction - all the
splendid fantasy of a lottery
ticket, with none of the
messy tax encumbrance.

That said, I'll sell you GIFs
of Arthur Lee's genitals for
5 quid a pop.

DJ Abe

Liked your piece about
policing Internet smut.
Especially the notion that
paranoia sells, but only when
the object of fear is cloaked
in mystery. Once revealed,
the initial shock wears off
and the fear evaporates -
permanently. So do the
profits. Of course, kids
deserve plenty of innocent
years, but, when they get
curious, information works
better than warnings.

Best part, though, was your
phrase along the lines of "we
need new illusions." I go
more in the direction of "we
need new images, new
visions." As a poet, I'm
trying to beat out some kind
of new images. The process
itself is a great antidote to
exposure to mainstream junk.

Thanks!

Jack Garman
<jackgrmn@cruzio.com>

I agree: I think warnings are
one of the worst and harshest
cures for the innocent years.
Disney better open up a
psychology branch to properly
profit from this dip into the
PSA pond.

I'm only surprised McDonald's
isn't involved in this
enterprise somewhere. Maybe
the PSAs will play on
placemats.

DeeJay Abe L.

The real question, raised by
your insightful article, is
whether the disney.com
opt-out at adult sites
happens by chance or choice.

On the chance side, it's true
that cartoons are pornography
for children and that
pornographic films are, in
Nina Hartley's words, "live-
action cartoons" - making it
entirely plausible that the
respective webmasters of
these sites, when considering
a happy rejection to the
underage, brought Disney to
mind without any real effort.
The difference between mouse
ears and rabbit ears, after
all, is strictly a question
of size.

On the choice side, it's not
entirely impossible that the
cunning hyper-linkuists at
I-Traffic have used the seamy
side of the Web to take
marketable advantage of the
pornamation coincidence, and
actively promote Disney
link-offs as the escape route
of choice for underage
jerk-offs.

In either case, it's not so
much a joke as an
inevitability. Disney will
only really be able to offer
cradle-to-grave fantasy if
they buy Playboy enterprises,
and the future likelihood of
that seems increasingly
possible.

Regards,
Read Mercer Schuchardt
<Read@Schuchardt.com>

Cradle-to-Grave Fantasy? Is
that some kind of
role-playing game?