Cut the Crap and Put the Smack Down on Clear Channel!
I find it stunning that Pima County would roll over and capitulate to Clear Channel on its billboard violations ("Still Standing," Currents, Oct. 28). This is like the police arresting a burglar and telling him they'll forget the crime if he'll just return a small portion of the items taken.
Allowing Clear Channel to continually find ways to avoid doing what they have been told to do just gives them more power and more reason to continue doing as they please. It's time to stop playing their game, because until we do, they will win every time.
City's Won Many Billboard Battles
In 1985, I was a member of the "'Yes' to Limit Billboards Committee," which took on the billboard industry in the nastiest political battle you can imagine. In an off-year election, when it was doubly hard to get voters to the polls, and despite the outrageous lies and purposeful deception in the advertising and rhetoric from the billboard industry, Tucsonans voted overwhelmingly to prohibit almost all new billboards. What we didn't know at that time was that for decades, the billboard industry had operated beyond all sign regulations. The county didn't and couldn't enforce their code until the violations were identified. So, please, don't suggest that the issue should be "settled," ultimately rewarding and enriching Clear Channel to the detriment of our community. And please don't parrot Clear Channel's threat of outrageous attorney's fees.
Another lie parroted in the article is that enforcement by the city has resulted in only 20 removed billboards. Since 1985, Clear Channel has lost more than one-third of its city inventory--200 of the original 600 billboards are gone, and this can only be attributed to the firm stance the city has taken, including litigation.
I urge the citizens of this community to persist in this fight against illegal billboards. Contact your city council members and county supervisors and tell them to continue the billboard battle.
Article on County Billboards Should Have Mentioned City Case
The article on billboards makes no mention whatsoever of the critically important oral argument that was to be held before the Arizona Supreme Court at the College of Law here in Tucson Nov. 4. The outcome will decide whether the city of Tucson has the authority to continue its enforcement cases on a large number of billboard violation cases in the city. It is surprising that this case was not mentioned, as it is the most important legal news on billboards right at this moment.
The Weekly article carps about the city getting "battered" in court, but the city has won most of its past court cases. As to the current case, the Supreme Court grants extremely few petitions for review, and it is doubtful that the court would have granted this one unless there was a concern with the Court of Appeals decision favoring Clear Channel.
So why did the Weekly, unlike the Tucson Citizen, ignore mentioning this case and upcoming oral argument in the Supreme Court?
Andy Silverman, Joseph Livermore Professor and director, Clinical Programs
James E. Rogers College of Law
Nonvoters Should Take Naturalization Classes
Oh, boy! Here I was trying to stay calm through Election Day, but you have made it impossible ("Staying Home on Election Day," Oct. 28). American citizens are on my s--- list somewhere below cheats and drug addicts. In the United States, they have the right to be idiots, but they are disgraceful nonetheless.
Do I get frustrated by the lies politicians tell on both sides? Yes! Do I sometimes feel like I don't like any of the candidates for an office? Yes! But I also understand that this is the right that our country was created for--the right to choose one's government.
Maybe native-born Americans should take the naturalization classes along with the foreign-born every 10 years or so. Maybe we would learn to appreciate that we have rights but also we have privileges--and paramount among the privileges is the right to vote.
'Weekly' Should Not Have Given Nonvoters Press
I was disappointed with the Tucson Weekly
for featuring a story on nonvoters in an election year that is so critical. First of all, brave people died so that we Americans would have the right to vote. It is precious. Secondly, there are numerous trying-to-be-voters in Florida who had their rights stolen by the criminals who are now in office. Third, what kind of message are we sending to our children and to the rest of the world?
Moral of the story: If you are too busy (not!), too lazy (maybe) or too stupid, you are remiss in your duties as an American.
Tom Danehy: Ass Clown
I just finished reading Tom Danehy's opinion piece titled, "It's Time to Eat a Hamburger to Protest Anti McDonald's Day" (Oct. 14). If Tom ever wishes to grow up and become a real journalist/writer, he might remember one simple thing: research. It is funny how he spouts off his french fry-filled mouth without mentioning any facts. If he read something besides tabloids and porno mags, he would realize that McD's has been an adamant squasher of unions and that it continues to lobby Congress to keep the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour. I like how he blames the low-income employees for their fate in the job market. Maybe if schools gave an opportunity with adequate teaching and funding, these people would have had a chance to better themselves.
I can see his education really paid off with the use of words like "butt phlegm." I, too, am a product of the public school system and have a few choice words about his opinion. You, sir, are an ass clown.
Adam Olan Yeater
Beal on Reel, Moore and Coulter
In James Reel's Media Watch column ("Bleating Sheep," Oct. 21), he writes: "Incidentally, when the Star
announced that Moore's counterpart on the right, Ann Coulter, would speak to the UA College Republicans, reporter Tom Beal described her simply as 'conservative columnist/author/lawyer Ann Coulter,' even though she's no less 'controversial' and extreme than Moore."
Incidentally, Michael Moore is described in that same story simply as "filmmaker Michael Moore." This is not to say I've never called Michael Moore controversial. The word appears in two of eight stories written by me that mention Moore.
Incidentally, Michael Moore is a very controversial figure.
A Complaint on Club Crawl
On Oct. 16, I was set to go and see the bands for the Fall Crawl deal. I left that whole thing disappointed. Really, it was god-awful. I could write a letter to the Tucson Weekly
, but god forbid, no-tact-me, they sponsored the event. But listen here ... the planners really had bricks for brains. Why?
Two entrances? Neither designated a re-entry? Please, better fence planning! The whole event was much better two years ago, when it stretched to and through Fourth Avenue. How does it make sense that you gotta re-enter when going into bars and clubs that are posted as participating, but are beyond fence range, forcing you to stand in very long lines? Either fence these places in, too, or use common sense and have a designated re-entry point.
If you have any say in the setup of Club Crawl, please stop it from going in this lame direction!
In last week's cover story, "Hate Crime," we reported that Philip Walsted was the only known person to have died from an anti-gay attack in Tucson. Other fatal attacks have occurred, such as the death of Richard J. Heakin in 1976. We apologize for the error.