I very much appreciated Tom Danehy's column on tattoos ("Flesh Wounds," July 13). I have to agree with Danehy on two points.
First, tattoos don't look good on women. And why do women get tattoos on their breast, then get angry when someone (mainly male) looks at it? (Not that that is my habit!) Isn't that the point of a tattoo? To look at it? Art? If they don't want anyone to look, then they shouldn't put it where they don't want it to be seen.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the society at large is getting more stupid. A significant part of the population, especially the younger members, has embraced this culture of "dumb and dumber" and tries to take it to extremes.
Too bad that Hollywood, our government, and especially corporate America can't see how this is affecting every aspect of life. Profit margins are down, crime is more violent, more people are behind bars than ever, and poverty is on the rise. A smarter nation is more competitive, more prosperous, and less likely to buy into any old "bull" thrown out by its leaders.
But maybe that's what the leaders of our nation want: dumber people. Hmm, a fool and his money, through taxation, are soon parted. Who better to con than stupid folks?
Tom Danehy is a pig and he makes me want to vomit. Danehy, are you even aware of the depth of your blatant sexism ("Flesh Wounds," July 13)? Sure, you may laugh and say, 'My column was only a joke!' But you know what? Idiocy is never funny! Ever!
Millions of people of both sexes find tattoos both beautiful and sexy, on themselves or others. I'm proud to be a tattooed woman and I KNOW that my artwork is well done and beautiful--and I'll have you know I have a lot more then a butterfly on my ankle or a birdie on my shoulder. And I'll also let you know that every man I've been with since getting them, himself tattoed or not, has found them sexy as all hell. And I'm an educated, middle-class woman. I don't date rednecks or white trash.
Maybe if you'd ever remove your head from your butt, you might look around and realize that this is nearly the 21st century and it's time to stop judging women based on what YOU think makes them look good. It's none of your business. And, what's more, we really just don't give a damn what ignorant assholes think of us.
I'm not offended by ethnic slurs, nor do I believe their use is proof of prejudice. But Tom Danehy's use of the term "faux-wop" in his July 6 column "Foul Shot" is inconsistent. Danehy's never been shy about his desire to be black, but I doubt he's got the balls to call himself a "faux-nigger."
I am writing because of a recent surge of letters complaining about your movie reviewers. James DiGiovanna, in particular, seems to annoy people.
Please continue to print such letters, because folks are entitled to have their opinions aired. But please do not even think of replacing James DiGiovanna. He may be an unpatriotic, self-aggrandizing geek, but he's one of the funniest writers in town. He's one of the few columnists I read who can actually make me laugh out loud, and most of the time his deadly wit is right on target.
Do I always agree with him? No, and I don't expect to. I know my own taste. If I'm certain that a movie won't appeal to me, I don't fork out cash for a ticket, no matter how many people tell me they think it's fabulous. Conversely, I don't think there's something wrong with me if I like a movie everyone else hates. I go to a movie based on what I know of the plot, actors and director, or sometimes just because I like the name or the trailer, and then decide if I like it--all by myself.
To the people who hate Mr. DiGiovanna because they take issue with which movies he reviews and his opinions of them: Spend 35 cents if you must to buy a paper with reviews you prefer. The homeless guy on the median will appreciate it.
And one more suggestion: If a movie stars, for example, John Travolta, I already hate it. So I don't go. It'd be a waste of time. Thus if you hate Mr. DiGiovanna and Mari Wadsworth's reviews, don't read them. It's a waste of time. Besides, you're getting spittle all over the newspaper.