GOING OUT ON A LIMBAUGH

Tom Carson was certainly given editorial cart blanche to trash Rush Limbaugh’s new book, “See, I Told You So” in his piece in the Book Review (Nov. 28). In fact, his review was presented as a critique of four books, three pertaining to Limbaugh, and one to Howard Stern. But a careful reading of his commentary revealed that the piece was anything but a book review, but a blatant personal invective against both Limbaugh and Stern. I detected no comments on either the Colford or the Arkush books, although both were heralded at the head of the article.

The purpose of the Book Review section of the Sunday Los Angeles Times is surely to review books in order to offer an educated opinion, and enlighten readers with regard to content. In Carson’s review he did no such thing but engaged in a transparent obloquy without any constructive comment.

I am more concerned at Carson’s diatribe against Rush, than against Stern (about whom I know very little). His comment that people are upset about Limbaugh’s “noisy vulgarity” has no credibility. Carson has either a new definition of “vulgarity,” or he is showing his blind and irrational passion and prejudice against someone who has political opinions contrary to his own! He should have cited some of the examples of Limbaugh’s vulgarity!

PAUL S. McCAIG, DANA POINT

Regarding Tom Carson’s article “A Breath of Foul Air”I suppose you thought that by associating Howard Stern with Rush Limbaugh, that the former might befoul the latter. But it won’t work. You insult the intelligence of millions of us who believe that Limbaugh talks common sense. I am a well-educated Mensan; I have found that liberals (like Carson) are the most intolerant, humorless and anguish of people. I need no self-help.

Margaret Thatcher, a kindred spirit of Limbaugh’s, writes that “human rights really stem from a mixture of Judaism and Christianity”; and those ethics have been the metaphysical foundation of the Western world, including America. Conservative traditionalists comprise the majority of Americans; they alone established the Constitutional laws which gave you the freedom to write whatever you wish, or to express your own unresolved conflicts.

P.S. Every knock is a boost!

ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, CULVER CITY

Your Sunday book review, “A Breath of Foul Air,”, which compares Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh and implies that their outpourings come from the same gutter, requires a change in definition of the term foul air . Stern’s output, since it basically covers bedroom and bathroom escapades, requires no more than the normally accepted definition. To accommodate Limbaugh, however, you must broaden the definition to include any political output that you disagree with. Your book reviewer apparently is angry because somebody on the conservative side, not his deified liberal left, is having some impact on the public for a change.

Pray tell, what is the difference between Rush’s political satire and criticism of the liberals and the political satire and criticism of conservatives practiced by “the liberal mainstream media”? Is Rush’s satirical song with pseudo-Clinton singing “We’ll take (tax) all your money from you” as distasteful as characterizing Dan Quale as a dope because he didn’t spell potato right or thought that the Murphy Brown thing was unfortunate? The difference is simply that Rush’s stuff is done with humor, usually in reasonable taste, while the mainstream media attacks with humorless ridicule and disdain.

CHUCK HATTERSLEY, RANCHO PALOS VERDES

Why was Rush Limbaugh’s book, “See, I Told You So,” left out of your big gift book issue?

Why did you publish a character assassination on Rush Limbaugh instead of a book review of “The Way Things Ought to Be”? Your review was published after the book was six months on the bestseller list.

Your review of “See, I Told You So” was another insult to Limbaugh. The book is No. 1 and will be for some time.

You’ll never answer--because you are so extremely prejudiced that a conservative does not stand a chance in your Book Review. Your left-wing liberalism inundates your paper. I find your Book Review obnoxious and despicable.

Lt. Col. D. W. Campbell, SEAL BEACH

BUT LENNY MADE US LAUGH

Tom Carson’s rambling and dispensable review of the equally rambling and dispensable Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern (Book Review, Nov. 28) likens the latter to the genius of Lenny Bruce with comments that betray a yahoo’s misreading of Bruce’s satirical thrust that revolutionized American comedy, movies and alternative journalism.

“Bruce’s routines about sex and race, like Stern’s,” writes Carson, “were liberating because they were scurrilously irresponsible, a holiday from decency and manners.”

Lenny Bruce was the first cabaret satirist to confront adults with intelligent and indeed “liberating” discussions of the formerly taboo subjects of race, religion and sex. As Paul Krassner put it, “Lenny fought for the right to say on a nightclub stage what he had the right to say in his own living room.” This aside, Lenny was distinguished from such overly promoted goons as Limbaugh, Stern and Andrew Dice Clay in that Lenny was funny.

Carson’s attack on the legacy of Lenny Bruce was the gasp of an ignoramus and a Philistine.

GROVER SALES, BELVEDERE

BALKINIZATION OF THE BEST SELLERS

I must tell you that I am appalled to see a sizable portion of the Book Review devoted to African-American Bestsellers. This list should be removed. It is prejudicial to omit a vital part of the Book Review section to cater to a singular minority audience. I can see that this could ultimately lead to another portion labeled Mexican-American Bestsellers, Korean-American Bestsellers, etc. The entire section will be transformed into nothing but lists of books read by minority readers. Yes, this does give all readers an insight into what African-Americans are reading, however I am frankly not interested; I am, however, interested in what everyone is reading, thus my interest in the general bestseller list.

LYNDA JENKINS, LA HABRA

Are we to assume that the addition of the African-American Bestsellers list in the Nov. 28 Book Review means that the bestsellers list you have been printing all these years has excluded people whose ancestors came from Africa?

I was dismayed to find that you managed to completely neglect bestsellers read by English-Americans and Austro-Hungarian-Americans, the ancestry of which I am proud. I am sure this was just an oversight and that the next Book Review will print bestsellers lists that include Americans of all origins, which will probably leave room for nothing else.

CANDACE J. GREENFIELD, WILMINGTON

Regarding your new category for bestsellers, “African-American Best Sellers.” For all the years that I have been reading the Los Angeles Times, I have never thought about the ethnicity of readers of bestsellers. I am appalled at The Times’ contribution to the Balkinization of this country. It is about time we all started to consider ourselves Americans. All of us, except the American Indian, have heritages originating from other countries. Why have you not considered all the many other ethnic groups in your bestseller list?

I am a second-generation American from Polish descent, but I would never think of myself as anything other than an American. This country is a “melting pot” and that in itself defines the word American. I think that if the Los Angeles Times changed anything it should be to title the section “American Bestsellers.” Don’t you think that would be more appropriate?

ELLEN HARRIS, NORTH HOLLYWOOD

INFORMATION SOUGHT

For a book on rock groupies of the 1960s to the present, I would like to hear from the groupies themselves to get first-hand accounts. Pseudonyms will be used upon request. I especially want to hear from Cynthia Plaster Caster, Connie Hamzy and Pamela Des Barres.

MICHAEL LIGHTCAP, 5849 HAROLD WAY 4, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90028