New York Magazine

Skip to content, or skip to search.

Skip to content, or skip to search.

Comments: Week of June 24, 2013


1. Mariano Rivera is bringing his already-legendary seventeen-year career to an end this off-season but believes his real purpose lies in the post-baseball work he has planned as a ­Pentecostal Evangelist, Lisa Miller wrote in a profile of the stoic, shy, and nearly unhittable Yankees closer (Saved,” June 17). Most readers, coming to the article for the baseball rather than the religion, found Rivera an admirably humble spokesperson for his faith. “I’ve always had enormous respect for Mariano Rivera,” wrote one reader at “What impressed me most was the way he delivered his points, in a friendly sort of challenging way, as opposed to some of the most judgmental preachy put-downs many of today’s younger Evangelical Christians tend to use. There was none of that in the Yankee Great’s voice. Still, Mariano, and I know you won’t buy this theologically speaking, but you’re already one of our unofficial ‘Saints’ of the mound in the Game and the Franchise’s long illustrious history. And yes, you will be ‘canonized’ at Cooperstown in six years!” Another echoed the feeling: “I will sorely miss the class, dignity, and consistent mastery Rivera has brought to the team all these years.” One even suggested the story might’ve embarrassed him. “I’m a pretty serious and well-informed ­Yankees fan, I have been since as long as I can remember, and can assure you that he in fact does keep his religion to himself. He is the most quiet and unassuming person and rarely speaks at all, let alone about his faith; it’s profiles like this one and reporters who make a big deal about his faith.” There was one commenter who was less sympathetic: “Tell him to take a big fat hike. People need to keep their religion to themselves, and I don’t need any help with mine.”

2. “Must Cats Die So Birds Can Live? asked Jessica Pressler, in a story about the war between cat lovers and bird lovers, over just how much and in what ways humans should intervene when feral (and not so feral) felines hunt down birds (June 17). “For the love of God, cat owners: Keep your cats inside,” wrote one ­commenter at “Not only does it save birds, but it’s the only way to make sure that your pets are truly safe. There are nutters all over the place who would happily kill your cat and think they’re doing the world a favor.” At Jezebel, Lindy West urged fellow cat ­lovers to take responsibility, too. “All of my kitty-cat affection aside, I think it’s important to recognize that your kitty-cats are not sacred … I know it’s hard to stomach, but sometimes the thing you love is bad. If your precious baby (or the pack of 40 feral precious babies that you throw t­urkey necks to in your spare time) is ­creating bad cat PR by devouring hella beautiful (and bug-eating) bird dudes, maybe campaigning for sterilization and for cat owners to keep their cats indoors would be more productive than harassing some mild-­mannered bird scientist who’s just doing his job? So I guess what I’m saying is spay and neuter your goddamn pets and leave the bird scientists alone and stop murdering each other’s cats in cold blood and we’re all going to die anyway. Good night.” At Vox Felina, one reader defended the cats: “The real problem with Pressler’s article is its focus on the debate at the expense of any significant depth,” she wrote, “from its unchallenged claims and familiar ‘powerful cat lobby’ trope to its suggestion (more than once) that ­Dauphine [a biologist accused of poisoning cats at her apartment complex] was framed … Once again, opponents have offered nothing whatsoever in the way of a feasible alternative to Trap-Neuter-Release. Instead, they continue to promote (some more noisily than others, of course) more of the same costly, ineffective, and unpalatable killing that, for generations now, has done ­nothing to diminish the population of free-roaming cats—or increase the population of birds.” Another reader, commenting at, added: “I can’t decide which is the more white people/First World problem: ­arguing with birders, or arguing in the comments section of an article in New York Magazine.”

3. “Most women would not be happy being me,” Stevie Nicks told Jada Yuan in a profile of the Fleetwood Mac front woman and lead drama queen, now 65 years old, single, “and still an undefeated romantic searching for love” (The Fairy Godmother of Rock,” June 17). “Some of Stevie Nicks’s life choices might not be ones we’d make for ourselves,” wrote Jessica Wakeman at the Frisky. “That permanent hole in her nose she got from snorting so much cocaine? No thanks! But when it comes to being happy with being single and independent and surrounding herself with friends so she doesn’t need a man, Stevie’s a veritable guru. Being able to take care of yourself and be independent is one of those life skills they don’t teach in school, but totally should.” At HuffPost Women, Nina Bahadur also cheered Stevie on: “Public service announcement: A woman can be ­perfectly happy without a partner or ­children. Fleetwood Mac singer Stevie Nicks came out and said as much. Preach ­Stevie.” To judge by comments on, the sermon was heard mostly by the already converted. “It must sound utterly ridiculous to a non-fan,” wrote one, “but it might be my favorite article ever.”

Send correspondence to:


Current Issue
Subscribe to New York

Give a Gift