Favorite

Mailbag 

Petland Rep: 'Weekly' Was Wrong to Just Run Letters

I represent Petland. It must have been a slow week for letters to the editor: three about Petland in your Dec. 23 issue (insert sarcasm here). Thank you for not presenting both sides of the story. What a waste of time for me to send our highly informative policy letter to our advertising representative several weeks ago. What happened to journalistic integrity? It would seem fair and just to publish our side of the story.

We've saved a lot of pets in Tucson, from dogs and cats to rabbits, ferrets and turtles--maybe more pets than FAIR or the Humane Society. And, our policy is to take back pets that a family cannot handle--pets that we have sold. We love pets as much or more than anyone. We didn't open a pet store because we don't like pets. When a pet needs a home, we do everything we can to make that happen. We have never sent a pet to be euthanized. We have offered valuable space in our store to the Humane Society, to ensure no animals are put to sleep. They never--I repeat, never--called us back or responded to our "offering of help" letter. I'm sure they have since euthanized animals that we could have saved.

During our recent pet therapy session at Handmaker Jewish Services for the Aging, a patient who hadn't moved in months started to move during one of our weekly pet interaction sessions. Gee, what a lousy business to have in Tucson.

It's time for your paper to stop listening to the radicals that point the fingers of hypocrisy at our press for failing to print both sides of an issue. They are the real hypocrites, as they sling arrows at local businesses without ever seeking the other point of view. The bottom line is responsible behavior. We provide quality homes and responsible, well-educated owners for all types of pets. They are pets that have been bred responsibly.

May I suggest that when you are provided with both sides of an issue, you print both. We sent our statements to you, but you chose to print three uninformed letters against us. We hope that this one will find its place in your paper, thereby balancing this heated debate.

Steve Landau
Landau and Company & Everyone Runs LLC


Petland Opponent: 'Weekly' Was Wrong to Just Run Letters

It is with methodical and routine precision that an "alternative" source of media, along with the mainstream, enjoys the filial practice of taking ad money from anywhere it comes (and/or cums, in the case of those alt-pubs). Your duplicity is also immutable that you run Mailbag with imprecations of "pets for sale" ads in the Weekly.

Nowhere do you take a direct criticism and dare to distance yourself from the decision by the double-speak publication of "dissent." Grow some balls or become a client of one of your solid transgender advocates' accounts and get some stitched on, so you can reply to the replies with mature defense of your editorial license. Tell them that their little blue-state exercise of subscription is only as consistent as your being paid to print that alternative account with mainstream monies. Herald, the duplicity! Have courage of conviction!

Jeff Calabrese


The editor would like to remind Messrs. Landau and Calabrese of two policies at the Weekly: One, the advertising side and the editorial side are kept separate. This means the ad folks have no say over what articles, columns, etc., we run, and we editorial folks have no say over the advertising content. Two, except in rare cases, nobody gets a chance to respond to Mailbag letters before publication.


A Libertarian Feels Sad Because a Colleague Was Called a 'LINO'

If Chris Limberis calls Scott Stewart a "tax and spend LINO (Libertarian in Name Only)" because he chooses to be an effective member of the Pima Community College board instead of reinforcing their schoolboyish idea of what a Libertarian is (fighting taxes at every turn, regardless of whether or not it's appropriate; requiring people to philosophically justify their bowel movements; etc.), I'd hate to see what sort of abuse Stewart would be given if he were more stereotypical ("Storm Trooper," The Skinny, Dec. 9).

Perhaps Scott Stewart bothers Limberis so because he stands as evidence against two major misconceptions regarding Libertarians--that we're ideologically homogeneous and impractical. It would be better in his eyes if we were all wide-eyed radicals seeking to immediately bring the government in line with the most shortsighted libertarian ideologies. We're getting serious, and we're not going away.

I don't always understand what Scott Stewart does, nor should I, as I hardly follow what goes on regarding PCC, whereas he is a board member. Nevertheless, I respect and admire him for what he does and for the integrity he has shown on the job. It would be easy to throw up the "libertarian" excuses; Scott Stewart decided to make a difference instead.

Bennett Kalafut
Second Vice Chairman, Pima County Libertarian Party


A Late Letter on Why the Borders Should NOT Be Opened

In answer to Linda Bayless' question about why don't we open the borders (Guest Commentary, June 10), it's quite simple: We are either a government of laws, or a government of opinion polls. If you don't like some part of our legal structure, seek to change it. If you can't accomplish it, live with it, just as the rest of us do.

The subject matter is irrelevant. Immigration, environment, speed limits--they're all some part of "the process," "the system." Efforts to subvert existing law because of one's opinions, if successful, create precedents for those whose efforts might either meet with your own disapproval or might prove inimical to your own efforts.

Art Eatman


Right Wingers of the World, Unite In Defense of Russ Dove!

I read your "Get Out of Town" article written by Tim Vanderpool regarding Russ Dove (Dec. 16), who believes in the enforcement of the Constitution. Actually, if our president and administration were enforcing our Constitution, the United States would not be in the deplorable predicaments we are in now, such as our country being invaded by 8,000 to 10,000 (every night) illegal criminals (among them terrorists, foreign violent criminals with long criminal records, people with all kinds of contagious diseases, people who are taking American jobs). If our Constitution was being enforced, we would not have our hospitals going bankrupt, nor our schools, our criminal justice system, nor our welfare/food stamp, etc., while Americans are being forced to pay for these millions of people who break our laws and who don't belong here, stealing funds Americans have worked for. Americans are sick of paying for these criminals!

If this gentleman, Russ Dove, wants our Constitution enforced, maybe we need to clone the man! We could probably use several million more Americans like him. I have read at least four articles from four different states where thousands of illegals were found voting in our elections (and I can bet you they are not voting for the good of this country, but for their own). And yes, he is right: Illegals don't usually speak English. Legal immigrants, such as my parents, all learn to speak English, so that is a fairly good sign of who is legal and who is not.

Vanderpool also needs to get his terms correct. There is no such thing as an illegal "immigrant." "Immigrants" come through the immigration system. Illegals do not. You say something about your "usual group of idiots" referring to Mr. Vanderpool, etc. --and you were not kidding!

Laura Leighton


Clarification

Last week's "Bouncing Bond Bucks" should have noted that Republican Supervisor Ray Carroll voted against rearranging bond projects and money.

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Latest in Mailbag

  • Mail Bag

    • Dec 19, 2013
  • Mailbag

    Reactions to Tom Horne's suckiness and Tom Danehy'
    • Oct 31, 2013
  • More »

Most Commented On

Facebook Activity

© 2016 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation