Favorite

Mailbag 

This L Does Not Want to Be Grouped With the Gs, Bs and Ts

Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but as a lesbian who can flash quite a few activist credentials (Iowa City Lesbian Alliance, board member of the Reproductive Rights National Network, founding member of Iowa City Women Against Racism), I am going to put my toe into the proverbial waters of political incorrectness and say if I hear the term "LGBT people" (Guest Commentary, Feb. 10) one more time, I'm going to throw up!

Believe me, this is a scary thing to say out loud. I came up through the lesbian/feminist culture wars of the '70s and early '80s, and I know how easily and quickly one can be shunned for having thoughts different from the party line, but I don't care anymore. The left has a maddening habit of embracing every perceived persecuted minority as a long-lost twin upon whom we all must lavish unconditional acceptance and unquestioning agreement, and it often turns into a bunch of lock-step, mind-numbing crap.

I am not an "LGBT person." I am not a bisexual woman, a gay man, nor a transgendered soul--I'm a lesbian, damn it! In fact, many bisexual women scare the bejeebers out of me, because although they may sleep with women, they always marry men. And am I allowed to say that I have ambivalent feelings about the whole transgender thing without being damned to politically incorrect hell? That I think gay male culture might have some soul-searching to do around coercive homosexuality in seminaries and unprotected, HIV-positive sexual behavior without being crucified as a traitor? That I believe a gay person can have all these thoughts and feelings and still be seen as absolutely supportive of gay rights and gay marriage and gay everything?

If experience serves me, probably not. So although I may be dragged off to a re-education camp, I'll be kicking and screaming the whole way against this "homogenization of victimhood."

Paula Klein


Did The Meat-Eating Letter Writer Protest Too Much?

In her letter published in the Feb. 10 issue ("Tuttle's Preaching on Vegetarianism Should Go to Hell"), Eunice Loh decided to skewer Connie Tuttle for "referring to meat as a corpse." She adds that she is "fully aware of the fact it used to be a living creature" and is "OK with that." Is she trying to convince herself or the readers of this paper? If she is so comfortable with her meat eating, I'm not sure why she felt the need to write such a defensive and caustic letter.

I'm also unsure when it was exactly that her brain disintegrated from mad-cow disease, but her use of the labored plants-are-living-too argument was laughable at best. Anyone who has been a vegetarian for more than five minutes could tell her why that argument doesn't hold water. But, since Eunice Loh prefers a game of name-calling to a reasoned argument, I'll leave the explanation to something she could probably find on Google, if she's not too busy searching for roast beef recipes or home remedies for a clogged colon.

While Eunice feels content to criticize Connie Tuttle for her "holier-than-thou proselytizing," she doesn't seem to mind being a completely unqualified spokesperson for vegans: "Never mind that your precious vegetarianism is wrong according to the vegans." Most of the vegans I know are not judgmental toward vegetarians, and I'm sure they would resent the fact that she is using them to further her reactionary attack against Ms. Tuttle.

I've been a vegetarian for eight years, and I've heard the rubbish of people like Eunice more times than I'd care to count. If she can't live up to the standards of a more humane, more ecologically sustainable diet, she could at least leave those of us who can alone.

Matt Peters


Article on KB vs. Pet Cemetery Was Right On

Kudos, Dave Devine, for your clear and concise article about the battle between the Pet Cemetery of Tucson and KB Home ("Easement Issues," Currents, Feb. 3).

As a long-time visitor to the cemetery, and one whose Siamese cat (Max) is buried there, it has grieved me to watch owner Darla Norrish struggle to hold her ground--literally and figuratively--against the bulldozing tactics of this would-be corporate titan. KB's willingness to blatantly lie and disregard "the small stuff"--such as owner consent, legal documentation, easements and viable access to The Pet Cemetery--has become legendary.

And I miss the long, tree-lined driveway.

Sally Rogers


Developers Should Not Be Allowed to Step on Little People

As in the Star's article by Mary Vandeveire, your article pulled a few punches in the description of Darla Norrish's problems with KB Home. It isn't a simple matter of a dispute over the easement; it is also a matter of broken promises made by KB Home to Darla. All she wanted was to be treated fairly, and this has not been the case.

I have known Darla for several years and know her to be devoted to her business and her clients. No one works harder to serve pet owners. She puts in many hours in her efforts to provide exactly what those clients want and need. Her clients feel she meets a real need in the community, and I personally think that no one could do a better job than she does.

Developers equal money. Money equals power. Power gives developers the "right" to step on the little people to get what they want. This is not right!

Rosa Love

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Facebook Recommendations

The Range

DuVal Hits Ducey on Chris Christie Visit

Our Political Races Could Be Worse, Surprisingly

Terry Goddard: "Dark Money Tries To Deceive Voters"

More »

Latest in Mailbag

  • Mail Bag

    • Dec 19, 2013
  • Mailbag

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

© 2014 Tucson Weekly | 3725 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation