I was shocked to learn of JoAnne Stuhr's firing from her position as curator at the Tucson Museum of Art. I have known JoAnne for many years, have worked with her on at least one committee and have enthusiastically admired her industry, creativity and professionalism in her exhibitions. She is an articulate supporter of the arts and a mainstay in our arts community.
The customer who gave me this news said, "I hope I haven't ruined your day." It's not his fault; nevertheless, this is disturbing and disheartening news.
Owner, Obsidian Gallery
This letter is in response to the letter by Kimberly Doss-Cortes ("Where Did Christ Speak in Leviticus, Exactly?" Aug. 21). Doss-Cortes is quick to slam Renée Downing ("True Colors," Aug. 7) for not reading the Bible when Doss-Cortez's letter seems to be based on her own faulty reading of the Bible.
The book of Leviticus is part of the Old Testament and therefore not technically a part of the Christian tradition. In fact, it was these acts of barbarism in the Old Testament that Christ was rebelling against. There is a famous parable in which Jesus is confronted with the Law of Moses. A woman is to be stoned to death for committing adultery. Christ's answer? "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her." I may be misinterpreting that parable, but I believe this a very tolerant and loving attitude displayed by Christ.
I would like to offer this vote of confidence for Downing. If one of the Ten Commandments states simply, "Thou shalt not kill," with no qualifiers attached, is George Bush, with his precision guided munitions and bunker-buster bombs, really practicing what he preaches?
I find it silly that Cirque du Soleil employs a person whose sole purpose is to stop anyone from misusing any of the words in their name ("Circus Act," Aug, 14). That probably costs more money than they could ever extract from Flam Chen or any others like them.
This could become unending if such a precedent is set. Should McDonald's sue MacIntosh for the shortened "Mac" so nobody gets their computer confused with their lunch?
Drag queens and CB-handle users everywhere would be in legal poo (not the bear). And thank God and fashion that the Catholics don't get that threatened, or we wouldn't be able to hear Madonna sing "Vogue."
All this verbal sparring IS rather circus-like, but I'd much rather support artists who spend their lives practicing live performance art than support any "circus" that spends so much time grooming corporate paper tigers. I, for one, would find it difficult to confuse the two groups.
Oh, and my LEGAL name is Cake, and every time I am introduced, someone leans forward and asks, "Kate?" I then respond with, "Cake É like the food or the band." I suppose I could get a "cease and desist" any moment. But then, who sues who?
Let me know how this turns out.
--Cake M. Mactimo
While the strength of the human sex drive varies dramatically among people, there is no such thing as sexual addiction ("Addicted to Sex," Aug. 21). It is not listed in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM IV, which is an exhaustive catalog of all mental diseases and behavioral disorders. (It has many listings for alcohol and drug addiction.) Neither does the concept have validity among mainstream psychologists and medicine.
It is a concept promoted by addictionologists such as Patrick Carnes to sell books. It is also a concept sold by treatment centers that charge up to $30,000 for 28 days of "treatment." Sex-negative preachers use the words to scare parishioners into righteousness, and Oprah and print reporters use the headline to titillate their audiences.
In my 31 years as a psychologist and 25 years as an ASSECT-certified sex therapist, I have never seen a sexual addict, only humans who have been assured that they are aberrant. The label is so pernicious because it precludes appropriate treatment for some people who have recognizable diagnoses.
And thank you for enlightening me for why SA or SLA meeting places are kept secret. I always believed one of my patients, a 12-stepper, who said, "If one wants to get laid, hang around a sexual addiction meeting because they always fall of the wagon!"
--Gene Gary Gruver, Ph.D., FAACP
Thanks so much for the excellent article "Combustion Happens" (Pick, City Week Aug. 7). This was the first real coverage TIHAN has received in The Weekly, and we've been around nine years! I loved your coverage, and the way you highlighted both the Spark event and TIHAN's mission and programs.
I've received lots of positive comments from your article. The event itself was a blast, and everyone really loved it. Darren Clark from Damn Fabulous Productions has been great to work with, and he really galvanized a unique group of people and ideas to make this one of the most innovative fund-raising events we've had. The night raised more than $1,500 for TIHAN's programs. Thanks so much for helping provide the "spark" we needed in the Tucson Weekly!
Executive director, Tucson Interfaith HIV/AIDS Network (TIHAN)
Not to worry; Tom Danehy's piece on Ann Coulter's book ("Coulter Club," July 31) just tells it as it is. For God's sake, read the book!
I'm neither liberal, Democrat, Republican, reactionary, Green nor whatever. I read. I form opinions. I take issues into consideration, each with objectivity.
I do not find anything scurrilous in Danehy's article, for he states the facts about the book, most basically the pro-McCarthy aspect. I have followed Republican planks since the mid-'40s, and they are poison to the welfare of people, in general, and, most significantly minorities. George W. Bush represents a more centrist view--but not by much. Put him in the early '50s, he'd be as noxious as most of that era of McCarthyite ilk.
Coulter? She'd have been no less than McCarthy's rightist tit, and his ho, to be sure. Or Strom Thurmond's.
Reading is not merely decoding words; it is assimilating cues, clues and messages critically. It is abundantly clear that the letter writers criticizing Danehy have not done this. They wish simply to rant and rave because Danehy just will not accept hate literature. And non-acceptance of hate is not liberal, nor Democrat-accommodating; it is objective journalism, and as such, one cannot but applaud it.
Apparently, Leo W. Banks has read too many fairy tales, and he just created one of his own in "Howling Mad" (Aug. 14). It contains so many inaccuracies, so much conjecture, so much hysteria and so much secondhand information; it is difficult to know where to start. The byline could have read R.R. Hood.
The author relies on the outlandish claims by some livestock interests and appears to have done little if any validation of those claims and limited independent research. Livestock interests lose cattle all the time; the cattle consume noxious plants; they starve; they get hit by cars; they get killed by other predators; sometimes people shoot them; and yes, from time to time, they are killed by wolves. The difference is that for the wolves, the ranchers get compensated by Defenders of Wildlife above the subsidies provided by the taxpayers. For other predators, they just call the federal government to come kill them.
Nearly all of the ranchers mentioned in this piece are ranching on public lands. These lands belong to the greater public and that means we get to have a say in how they are managed, no matter where we live. Public lands must accommodate other activities and also accommodate wildlife.
Many ranchers would like to hang their economic problems on the wolves. That is hogwash. Grazing cattle in Arizona has always been marginal at best. We live in an arid state where there is limited forage and where plants generally grow quite slowly. Without the below-market grazing fees and the federal government's generous "predator control," ranching in Arizona would not be feasible at all. With the prolonged drought and the increasing importation of beef, it is less so.
With a smidgen more research, your "reporter" would have found that a scientific review recommending changes to the wolf program has been ignored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and these public lands ranchers. Scientists recommended that ranchers remove dead cattle in a timely manner, so wolves don't scavenge on them and subsequently favor them as their prey.
Clearly, this piece had nothing to do with science or facts, but is about hype and emotion. We are not asking for an environmentalist-friendly article or even a wolf-friendly article. We are asking for a balanced and factual article.
Wildlife Committee Chair
Sierra Club--Grand Canyon Chapter
Regarding Leo Bank's "Howling Mad": The Mexican Gray Wolf was here long before any of us. This is THEIR land, not ours. It makes me sick that these outdated, uneducated people think they can rule on what lives and what dies just because they get in the way of their livelihood. Who's next?
The Tucson Weekly owes its readers another article that interviews the many people in rural southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico whose lives have been enhanced by the presence of wolves.
Thanks and best regards.
Regarding Leo Bank's "Howling Mad": I've been around too many ranchers for too many years to believe the crap this article was filled with. No wonder the stories never made it past the ranching community; they would be laughed out of Dodge.
On Aug. 14, I picked up The Weekly on my way to school, where I teach third grade.
Being the first day of classes, I assumed the howling whine I heard was coming from a teary-eyed student. But to my utter amazement, it was actually coming from The Weekly inside my bag! Then I started to read Leo Banks' article, "Howling Mad," and it suddenly made perfect sense: I was hearing the same old high-pitched sniveling that ranchers have perfected during many years of living off the public lands and constantly bitching about it.
As a public school teacher who has seen many colleagues and students suffer from budget cuts to education, I have a message for these ranchers: Get used to it. Everyone has to adjust to change, and those who live in rural areas are not immune to it.
--Mary Caroline Rogers