Kudos to Tom Danehy. He tells it like it is. His column "Maturity Leave" [August 23] has only one flaw, as far as I'm concerned. John Cochran is the Prince of Darkness. Defending the innocent and prosecuting with equal vigor the guilty is the farthest from his mind. Who has the fattest wallet is numero uno with him.
To the Editor,
After "Maturity Leave," I wonder in what perverted sense of the word has Tom Danehy matured. Well, in fairness, he has grown out of that terrible writing phase when he began his more profound sentences with "Dude ... ." Big picture, though: Tom is stuck in the depressed-12-year-old-girl phase. To him everything and everyone sucks; only the degree is different.
Over the years he has devolved from a humorous and at times adequate sports writer to the lowest form a human being can take: a society critic. I write this letter only to save him from himself.
In "Maturity Leave," his latest dose of negativity and condemnation, in his effort to scratch out a meager journalistic existence, he took aim at Johnny Cochran. Now he's gone too far. Please tell me he has not joined the Johnny Cochran bashers. Or at least tell me why.
"I don't like Johnny because he gets scumbags like OJ and Puff Daddy off." Taking it down to Tom's level, the real people to bash and bash are not the lawyers who represent criminals but the doctors who treat them. All lawyers do is keep them out of jail for a while. Doctors actually keep these people alive and in good health. Cock (his friends call him that) and the entire legal profession face unfounded attacks on their collective ethic, while the physicians, the true hired guns, the ultimate underwriters of crime in all its ugly manifestations, sit back writing prescriptions and lighting cigars with hundred-dollar bills. Nurses, too, are their partners in crime, patching up the criminal element and sending them back into society to rob and cheat and kill again. Onward, mercurial doctors, and do your dirty work.
See, I'm not saying don't criticize; that's obviously what they pay Tom Danehy for. I am just saying, now and then criticize someone new. That is what separates the journalists from the hacks.
What Tom does with his column is his business, but as a friend, concerned reader and, most of all, as an angry black man, I'm warning you: You leave Johnny Cochran alone. He never hurt nobody.
I'm returning these columns by Tom Danehy ["Old School," September 27; "Terrorizing Thoughts," October 4]. To put it mildly: I'm a dissatisfied reader. If I wanted to hear spoiled middle-aged men commiserate, absently repeat themselves and belittle their wives I could go just about anywhere.
I've repeatedly tried to find merit in Danehy's column, but I can't. "Terrorizing Thoughts" promotes the typically arrogant ranting and raving of American ignorance that incites terrorism; it's a mirror of the same fanaticism that destroyed the World Trade Center towers, an embarrassing and blatant example of pride in cultural illiteracy.
We've seen what Danehy's kind of impatience can do and we're not learning: It's racism. It's use of wealth and force to get things done. It spoils our drinking water and turns mountains into pit mines. It dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Please, Tom, let's not revisit the "glory days."
Susan Zakin's column was the best thing the Weekly had going. Without her, the paper offers little more than a calendar of events with some gossip and ads. Leaving us alone with Danehy is a frightening prospect. He certainly has a right to express his opinions, but they belong in a men's locker room (at best).
To the Editor,
Hey! You cranky haters out there--lay off my man Danehy. I enjoy his fearless irreverence. Think of him as our local Bill Maher. Anyone who can be p.i. in this burg is sorely needed. Pour it on, Tom!
I look forward each week to the Tucson Weekly as the only intelligent coverage of issues that affect us. How disappointed I was to read Ted Rall's September 13 cartoon, with its biased, disgraceful inflammatory rhetoric.
This Ted Rall obviously has never read a history book. The Arab war on Israel and Jews did not start yesterday. The Mufti of Jerusalem declared war as early as 1914, and by 1939 was a staunch ally and supporter of Adolph Hitler.
The Palestinians can only blame their leaders for their plight. Would you let someone work in your home who might destroy it?
The U.S. has bent over backwards to treat Palestine evenhandedly, many times to the detriment of Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East. We are supposed to be nice to the Muslims and not blame them all for the atrocities of September 11. The same should apply to all religions and ethnicities. Shame on you. I am appalled.
As a faithful reader of the Tucson Weekly, I was distraught to learn that you had dropped your excellent columnist, Margaret Regan.
I started reading Regan's articles when they were about topics of special interest to me. I quickly graduated to reading her articles because they were hers, knowing that I would always learn something worthwhile and be well entertained while I was at it.
I've admired her work both in the arts and on subjects relating to civic life. When she addresses issues like the Santa Cruz River or the Big Box controversy, she provides both depth and breadth. While many journalists limit themselves to the parameters of an issue as it has been delineated locally, she provides illuminating perspective from farther afield, as in her article about zoning in Fort Collins, Colo. I was in the thick of the Big Box Battle here, and for me the Fort Collins story was enlightening, inspiring and comforting.
There are probably other good writers floating around, but someone like Margaret Regan, with the depth of her experience in addressing community issues (in addition to her great writing), is an irreplaceable resource for the community. Please bring her back!
I just read "Trash Talk" [October 4], regarding city council candidate Paula Aboud, and found it to be a perfect example of stealth reporting. Not only does reporter Chris Limberis editorialize in the piece, he seems intent on stirring an already over-boiling melting pot. The headline is appropriate.
Specifically, and most egregiously, Limberis' less than subtle reference to her heritage I find most disturbing. I can only wonder if Aboud were of Jewish descent, or Norwegian, for that matter, and had named a corporation Hava Nagilah or Baldur Enterprises, would Limberis bother to translate or explain the derivation?
While Limberis followed the paper trail he overly emphasized the negative rather than the positive. If only two properties out of 45 have been cited for infractions, that's a pretty good track record in my book. But then, he had to fill the space.
On more than one occasion Limberis stealthily points fingers at the Aboud family, implying unethical behavior in its compliance with the rules of the system. Incorporating in Nevada sounds like a wise move to me. How many others have done so? How many other corporations have incorporated in Delaware, as well, even though their companies are nowhere near the state? Limberis then cites Aboud's financial disclosure statement and implies it is less than forthcoming, while acknowledging that the state form is vague at best. It appears to me that if fault is to be found it is in the system, not with those who abide by the rules.
Overall, Limberis' piece seems to be much ado about nothing. It is the flavor of the piece more than the specifics that I find offensive.
By the way, Limberis is a Greek name, I believe. So what?