If Tom Danehy is as egregiously illiberal as Shelley Huff and A.R. Seaman suggest (Mailbag Aug.14), I hope they would be at least as concerned with raising rightist rhetoric from the gutter to rational--and honest--discourse as with blasting Danehy (and the "liberal media") for occasional lapses into what they consider "extremely offensive" adjectives and "journalistic McCarthyism."
If Danehy were writing a scholarly dissertation on Treason ("Coulter Club," July 31), he could probably have offered refutation of Coulter's distorted factoids. But where in his column does he suggest that Coulter doesn't have the right to free speech? He, and all "liberals" that Coulter and other right-wingers call "traitors," have every right to strongly criticize and refute her and her arrogant ilk.
By the way: If Huff has no "well-educated, beautiful" woman model with "an opinion" other than Ann Coulter, I suggest she try Molly Ivins, Arianna Huffington, Maureen Dowd, Barbara Ehrenreich, Barbara Kingsolver, et al.
--Ann Morrissett Davidon
It's a rare issue of the Tucson Weekly when somebody doesn't send in a letter bashing poor Tom Danehy. It's time someone wrote a letter in praise of his political and intellectual prowess, his literary excellence and his analytical perceptivity. Unfortunately, this is not that letter. DANEHY, YOU BLEW IT AGAIN!
Ah, yes, Ann Coulter, queen of the liberal-bashers. The question immediately comes to mind: What liberals? All that's left of the left these days is a simpering bunch of ivory-tower intellectuals who think that now that all the great liberal causes are won, they can just sit around in some dank, slimy cavern of philosophical prattle talking about poststructuralism and such irrelevancies. Why do these effete wimps even need bashing?
And yet the right wing continues to bash. At the very forefront of the bashers is the aforementioned Ms. Coulter, laying about this way and that with a linguistic meat ax, vituperation its blade, pseudopatriotism its haft. Terrible to behold is the mounting mountain of left-leaning bodies where her axe has swung!
But there's something wrong with this picture. (And this is where you went astray, Tom.) Upon closer inspection, the severed heads are made of papier-mâché and the bodies are the still-flopping carcasses of red herrings.
In her desperate flailing, she has become a laughing-stock, a comic, sad caricature that only brings cringing embarrassment to the conservatives. Hey, know what? Looks like our Ann has perpetrated the perfect, the absolute, the ULTIMATE blonde joke!
This is one of the great political hoaxes of all time, a last hurrah for the liberals, and it totally went over Mr. Danehy's head--not to mention a whole raft of conservatives.
Keep it up, Ann; the liberals need you!
After witnessing Tom Danehy's intellectual meltdown, any objective observer would have to conclude that Ann Counter is probably right on target.
I'm glad to see that Shelley Huff considers Ann Coulter her personal hero, to which I can deduce that Ms. Huff also wants the United States to invade other countries "(and) kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." That she laments that The New York Times building wasn't the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh. That believes "conservatives in America are the most tolerant (and long-suffering) people in America." That lazy research, factual errors and misleading statements backed by poor footnotes is her idea of good writing. (Let me guess: journalism major?)
Ms. Huff must be a blast at parties.
Tom Danehy's rant is stereotypical of the left. He takes conservative authors to task with nothing more than juvenile, hate-filled, mean-spirited, vitriolic venom filled with personal attacks of the vilest nature. He says nothing worth reading for the thinking brain. I am sure Tom's columns are cathartic for his soul, but they are generally without merit for anything else. Tom engages in precisely the same type of rhetoric of which he accuses conservative writers.
Tom might consider swallowing his pride and quit being such a cheapskate by PAYING for a few of these books, rather than "reading" them in the book store. Make margin notes. Get a full understanding. Then Tom could write a thoughtful, cogent and logically thought-out analysis of each author's work. That would make for a much more intellectually satisfying, let alone honest, read for the readers.
Regarding "Air Traffic Controls" (Currents Aug. 7): Many citizens in Southern Arizona don't support expansion of our military bases. Mayor Bob Walkup (a former Raytheon executive) and city officials just say "yes" as the military pimps Tucson, planning to bring in more and louder aircraft. This is a clear case of the military encroaching on neighborhoods, not the other way around.
We're at a point where military build-up is harming our quality of life more than it is helping, and it will only get worse. If the only way to keep bases open is to continually expand, then Davis-Monthan and Fort Huachuca should both be closed. It's time for state and city officials to focus on building a diverse economy, rather than encouraging military build-ups that will turn Tucson into a war zone.
--Daniel R. Patterson
Jimmy Boegle's rant ("We're No 33! Who Cares!" Editor's Note Aug. 14) ends with the rhetorical question, "You're telling me that Iowa City is a 'cooler place to work, play, study, party, and live' than Hilo?"
I guess you haven't been to either place.
Hilo is on the ass end of the Big Island, Hawaii. There are a couple of resort hotels (that are run down), but it might as well be Anywhere (or Nowhere), U.S.A. It's got a Wal-Mart and the usual strip malls and chain restaurants, pawn shops and used-car lots. Nightlife? Forget about it. Palm trees alone do not an island paradise make.
On the other hand, Iowa City, in spite of the fact that it's in Iowa, is a pretty neat little college town. There's some good places to eat, a cool record store, even a nationally-known rock club (Gabe's Oasis).
Of course, I went to college in Hoboken, N.J., which probably didn't make Outside's list.
Your Skinny allusion ("Bushwhacked," Aug. 14) to Mr. Bush's "loss" at not visiting at Mi Nidito is puzzling. Do you really believe his pandering visit would have swayed any Mexican voters?
His avoidance showed discernment to the reality that visiting Democrat haunts would be a waste. To compare him to the lubricious Clinton's slobbering "crowd-working" demonstrates your perfidiousness.
As usual Renée Downing blasting the Bushies ("True Colors" Aug. 7) is the best part of The Weekly. I don't think she realizes that what she writes echos a lot of sentiment around the country about the walking contradiction known as G dub.
Renée, keep up the good work.
In "Brush Off," it was misstated that the city of Tucson gives the Tucson Museum of Art $140,000 a year for the care and preservation of the five city-owned historic houses on the museum block. In fact, the museum spends $140,000 from its own budget on the five houses, which it leases from the city for $2 a year.
We apologize for the errors.