Regarding "The White Issue" [December 13]: I just checked in the mirror, and guess what, I'm white.
All those years out in the sun, attempting an enlightened color change, goes right out the window when I drop my shorts. (I'm talkin' just color here, you wise-asses.)
Hell, if I'd stopped to think about it before this latest release, I could have added to what seems to be an issue of my beloved Weekly dedicated to the politically correct and self-effacing sport of "white-bashing."
I was not at all surprised that the only one to not take up the latex gauntlet in this issue was Emil Franzi. I know this cat personally (for years) and suffice it to say that Emil dislikes everyone equally, in keeping with his Libertarian leanings.
I too dislike everyone equally, and Emil is one of my most-liked dislikes. That I don't automatically categorize by color or gender or race seems to me, after this issue, a shortcoming, but hey, what can I say?
In the future I'll be sure to point out to the many people I hang out with, in our mutual dislike for each other over beers at "the porch," that there are Hispanics, Indians, blacks, gays, women, Finns, Irish, Italians, dog-lovers, cat-lovers among us, right over there (pointing, of course, for clarity) ... well, you see my point.
As a completely dislikable individual, I should make it a point to add to my very short list of dislikes, thereby embracing my white heritage and simply disliking for the nonintellectual basis of "difference."
No longer will I simply dislike those I meet simply because they are dumb-asses, or bigots. Or the worst reason of all, they don't shoot as well as me.
Thanks for opening my eyes to a glaring (white) personality flaw. This is the reason I love The Weekly.
Regarding Jim Nintzel's "Under a Tax" [December 6]: It's not clear if the proposed transportation tax plan excludes consideration for pedestrians and cyclists, or if it was simply the writer's choice not to address that part of the plan. However, consideration for pedestrians and cyclists was noticeably absent from the description of the proposed GSI at Grant and Campbell. The writer states that a stoplight would remain on Campbell to allow for left turns. The message seems to be that planning is focused entirely on motorized vehicles.
The proposed "congestion projects" will impact the entire community, which (particularly in midtown and especially near the UA) consists of a large population of pedestrians and bicyclists. It's not the choice of most people in this community who don't own cars not to own them, but in some cases it is. Either way, since only 18 percent of the tax revenues are proposed for mass transit, the needs of pedestrians and cyclists should be considered.
Preferably, a greater percentage of the tax revenues would be allocated to mass transit. More bus routes are needed to accommodate non-car owners and citizens who want to leave their cars at home. Perhaps smaller buses, and more of them, could cover larger areas of the city to service more citizens. Also, light rail is something that should be given serious consideration.
I hope the City and Council will not be taking a "Robert Moses" approach to our transportation needs. His transportation work in New York City is well known for destroying neighborhoods. As I was not aware that it existed, I appreciate the writer mentioning the Neighborhood Protection Amendment. The plans for GSIs should be put on the ballot, separately, for voter approval as required by the amendment. It seems the GSI plan is a perfect example of the need for the Neighborhood Protection Amendment.
Congratulations to Tom Danehy for his article on home schooling and sports in public schools ["Double Standard," December 20]. I have always felt that it was totally unfair to students in public schools to allow home schooled children to come and take part in the sports programs. Tom states every point that I have ever considered succinctly and although this probably won't result in any changes in the state it is good to read that someone agrees with me.
To the Editor,
Regarding Tom Danehy's "Double Standard": Well, once again, Danehy has unfortunately let his fingers hit his keys to type up yet another vent of attack on those he sees only as an enemy.
Once again he has chosen some silly little aspect of what the main public refers to as an "important" part of what we, the homeschoolers, also pay exorbitant tax dollars to support, namely public school sports games. Let me repeat, our kids may not utilize the schools through most of the day, but we are still paying for them, just like Danehy.
Sports can and should be a part of a healthy upbringing for children. But sports have been turned into a god by some in this country. And to offend their rules of worship is to blaspheme. How dare these outsiders enter into Danehy's temple of sports worship? Obviously Danehy has decided that his "elitist" ideas of public school sports programs are to be maintained as the status quo, something he calls "a longstanding American institution," which means that even if you can barely get by in the easiest of public school classes but can weigh in at 300 pounds, you're on the football team. Hooray for Danehy's "institution" (choke, cough). Not allowed in Danehy's world are those coaches who have decided that yes, these home-schooled kids are allowed to play, even if they are actually learning something outside of the school system, since they, the coaches, realize that they want to win some games by having really good players, no matter what the source (as usual).
These home-schooling kids wouldn't be playing if the coaches didn't pick them. If these coaches are picking players "from the best available" so they can win, isn't that what all of those sports-god-worshipers out in the stands want? The kids just want to play and do well.
Please tell Danehy to stop trying to influence people into denying home-schooling parents the services, and yes, public school sports activities they are also already paying for. Maybe Danehy only wants certain taxpayers out there to reap the benefits of their tax dollars. Or is a free society, where all taxpaying citizens live in freedom and enjoy the benefits of their tax dollars, not Danehy's "football-cup-of-tea"? Danehy pays taxes, and his kids get to play, and the home-schooling parents pay taxes, but their kids don't get to play? Who's the one with the double standard?
Arizona, the state that boasts such records as the highest teen pregnancy rate and the lowest standard of education, the only state that wanted to pass a law legalizing chloroflourocarbons, will probably offer another award this year to Tom Danehy for his recent attack on Kwanzaa ["Kwanzaa Quandary," January 3]. What's next, Tom? A journalistic bullying of the dreidel? How about a severe bashing of the Easter egg?
This is an all-time low in a long record of bigotry and drivel by Danehy. But it's what we've come to expect in Arizona, where we boast rodeos (a sport where little men with big egos torture defenseless animals) as a tourist attraction.
In fact, I think soon we could go so far as to say that Danehy is the voice of our smog-filled, traffic-infested state. The state that brought us Fife Symington and the Border Patrol can be proud to say we have such an artist as Tom Danehy in our midst who writes eloquently of his intolerance of Kwanzaa.