Dougherty Deserves a Spanking for His Rant

What a stupid rant Hugh Dougherty wrote ("The Rant Issue: Gay Life in Tucson," Feb. 24). It's ageist, looksist and shallow. Granted, Tucson's gay dating scene is less than fabulous, but so is your writing. Why did you even write it, only to reveal your inauthenticity at the end? You neutered yourself making your whole piece nothing more than pointless blather.

Tucson is like any other dull-normal American city full of nouveau riche, working-class and down-and-outs. Fortunately, it has a university to spice things up a bit. Try going to a place which might offer more in your age and financial range (even though you're not really looking because you've found "Mr. Right"), and you'll find legions of men doing crystal, going to circuit parties and gyms and yoga three times a day to get entrée into the community. But mostly, all they get is a quick suck in the steam room and HIV.

Although it's not the promised land for homos, Tucson is at least somewhat sheltered from this mentality and physicality. And you neglected to mention all the sweet-hearted Latino men who came running over the border to sleep with your bourgeois white ass.

You really ought to reevaluate your thinking on older men--you're going to really pay for it when you are wandering through a bar hoping someone will talk to your sad and wrinkly old face. Maybe then, the best you'll get is a good feel copped from some pissy young man on the way back to your gated community, and you'll wish you just gave it away more when you were young.

Darling, what goes around, comes around. You're old enough to know that and never too old to turn you over my knee and spank you for your bad writing.

There's my rant on yours.

David Gilmore

It's Raining ...Homosexual Commentary!

There were, gasp, two commentaries by homosexuals in a recent Weekly. I thought I felt a chill in hell this week. The thing is, both typified not only the Tucson attitude in the gay and lesbian community, but that of the larger community--that is, selfish and myopic.

To Paula Klein ("This L Does Not Want to Be Grouped With the Gs, Bs and Ts," Mailbag, Feb. 24): I do agree with some of what you say. I think, for the most part, bisexuals are, sadly, closet cases or shallow people trying to be chic. I also think that transgendered surgery and medicine often replaces reparative therapy to keep people in the closet and away from their homosexuality. That being said, where on Earth do you think this politically correct victimhood came from? Was it invented in the bath house of San Francisco in the '70s? I think not.

No indeed, it was invented by lesbians. You know, the ones who have invaded and taken over Wingspan and most other community centers so that activism has been replaced by victim nurturing, 12-step meetings and endless discussion about personal hurt. In fact, one could almost say that this defines lesbian sex these days. It doesn't have to, but alas, it does.

So my dear, while taking inventory about our community, please include this on your list. Lesbians just hate it that gay men are having so much sex, because it messes with their endless processing about feelings. However, one can be out and queer without forming a committee first. You need to get over that. Furthermore, the priests having sex with kids are having sex heterosexually more than homosexually, and you need to know that. Finally, your concern over the Catholic priests and placing that item on the agenda, as if gay men have anything to do with it, proves my point about the endless processing that lesbians find so orgasmic.

Now onto the other comment by Hugh Dougherty, also known as Goldilocks--you know, the too-cold, too-fat, too-old, too-bold guy. Hugh, poor thing, this is why you never get laid. But your attitude does shed light on the contemporary gay man. You want it all, and you want it all now, and you want it defined down to the smallest detail of your petty, shallow soul. So instead of the sex-positive, in-your-face activism of the '70s, we now have consumer fetishists. These guys cruise for men like they're shopping at the mall.

You should be so lucky to get felt up by anyone and to live long enough to be old. And you say you have a boyfriend. I pity that man. Is he alive? Or did you just pick up a mannequin off of eBay? Oh and by the way, wake up honey; Tucson is not safe. Gay men have been brutally attacked here in the past few years, and continue to face discrimination in housing and jobs. I know, I know, this burst your gay pink bubble, but it's a cruel world, sweetie.

That being said, let's get our act together. Gays and lesbians do share a common enemy. The right-wing Christian war path keeps getting worse and worse. We see this in the violence and abuse of our civil rights with laws being passed against us daily.

So, Paula, lesbians need to get active and fight aggressively for our rights again. Stop being so damned timid and consensual over every little thing. Bring with you the unique qualities that make lesbian relationships powerful and valuable. And Hugh, gay men need to get active and fight aggressively for our rights again. Life is more that some template of beauty and happiness created by the corporate media as seen in endless ads in gay magazines and Web sites. It's more than preening narcissism. You, too, have to bring with you the uniqueness and creativity of being a gay man to the community.

Jim Ru

A Rant You Missed: Bad Road Engineering

My favorite rant this year is one that you missed: There are new suicide lanes in Tucson. Everyone cheer. If you travel on Golf Links Road west, you will come to a double-lane entrance ramp just before Ajo Road. Talk about demolition-derby time; try getting over two lanes around 5 p.m. during the snowbird season. Talk about road rage; talk about drama--it is all there with heart-stopping excitement. They should have seating along the edge of the road and serve hot dogs, popcorn and drinks. It must have been an MIT engineer who was stoned on crack coming up with this marvelous solution.

Of course, most of us do not realize that the road department's motto is, "We are not No. 1, so we have to try harder to drive you crazy."

Ripping up road and milling roads during the height of the season is one of the major ways our road department has decided to drive everyone to the nearest bar. In the same vein, the same MIT genius has decided that some green turning arrows should come before the green light, and some green turning arrows should come after the green light.

Rachel Lieber

Two More Traffic-Related Rants You Missed

Thanks for the rants. You forgot about these exasperating articles of modern life in Tucson:

· The airport direction sign on Benson Highway that points sideways. It seems the government agency specializing in making signs is lost on the ambiguity of a 45-degree pointing arrow (which presumes knowledge of the road ahead). Pity the poor tourist who takes this as an indication to turn, thus leading them away from the airport and assisting to miss their flight.

· People who drive at the exact same speed of the person in the car next to them, usually 5 miles per hour below the speed limit, thus making it impossible to pass.

Michael Kotas

Regardless of Technique, Emissions Tests Are a Rip-Off

Regardless of whether your car was tested with a tailpipe probe or a plug-in, emissions testing is still a legalized rip-off ("The Rant Issue: Emissions Testing," Feb. 24, and subsequent Mailbag letters). My 1991 Toyota Corolla has passed every year. Most cars built in the last 15 years or so with computerized ignition and fuel injection are going to pass.

As I recall, several years ago, someone in the state Legislature proposed that newer cars should be tested every other year. The testing companies' response was: If you do that, we will have to charge the cars that do come in substantially more, because we won't be making enough money. Also, cars newer than three years old don't have to be tested, but they still have to pay the fee.

Ralph Jameson

A Different View of Christo's Central Park "Gates"

Jimmy Boegle, you are hearkening back to your art-reviewing days? It must have been a really long time ago, because you are really out of practice ("Random Thoughts," Editor's Note, Feb. 17).

I, too, was in New York and saw the Christo Gates in Central Park at least three times: in sun, on cloudy days, still moments and with the wind blowing, from on high and from strolling under the gates. I found it beautiful: the gates winding everywhere along the paths, the saffron material blowing in different directions, the clouds and sun creating shadowy effects.

Your choice of words (your privilege)--bunch, looming, cheap, hunter-orange, sucky (now there's a winner!), mutterings--expressed your reactions and gave your readers no chance at another viewpoint. But it was an editorial, yours to write!

Opening day was like a joyful fair! People spoke to one another; smiles were everywhere, kids playing, people holding hands. Where were you? In the tunnels?

Pat Simon

"Pericles" Reunion Scene Was Incompetent

I disagree with James Reel's review of Pericles ("Play Resurrected," Performing Arts, March 10). In an otherwise enjoyable and creative production, director Gibbs' decision to use D. Lance Marsh in Pericles' reunion scene was neither touching nor brilliant. It was confusing and alienating, a cheap, incompetent, pointless pseudo-Brechtian gimmick. I spent the last 15 minutes of the play angry and disappointed.

Sam Zales

A Loving, Reasoned Take on the Vegetarianism Debate

In response to Craig Preston's response ("Vegetarians Survive Only Because Carnivores Allow Them," Mailbag, March 3) to Connie Tuttle's column (Feb. 3): Craig, buddy, do some research before you criticize another's lack of research. Preston states, "It wasn't a bunch of adolescent minds like Tuttle who built this country." Hey Craig, Benjamin Franklin was a vegetarian. And by the logic Preston uses with his one friend who lived to be 100 with a terrible diet, one vegetarian founding father proves the virtue of vegetarianism.

Second, who says that vegetarians are meek? Craig makes the unreasonable assumption that because someone doesn't eat meat, they're not tougher than he is, just like he also makes the unreasonable assumption that because Tuttle is a woman, she can cook.

Craig, do everyone in Tucson a favor and continue to clog your arteries so that your type will quickly be wiped from the earth.

Dan Maher

Fun Math Problems Involving Evolution-Rejecting Scientists

Wow, 350 whole scientists ("Many Top Scientists Reject Evolution" by Dan Folland, Mailbag, March 3)? Well, now, how many scientists are there? The American Chemical Society lists more than 160,000--this is just those who are signed-up members of the ACS.

Not particularly impressive, is it?

Mitch Marcus

Read Scientists Before Citing, Please

If evolution deniers are going to use Richard Dawkins to buttress their case ("Many Top Scientists Reject Evolution," Mailbag, March 3), I recommend they actually read his books. Mutations are random, but natural selection is anything but: Beneficial traits are passed on, and detrimental traits aren't. This doesn't require any kind of divine intervention or "intelligent design." As for "many top scientists" (and 350 is quite a small number), you'll find that most have degrees unrelated to biology, degrees from obscure Bible colleges, or both. The Darwin article ("Evolution Revolution," Feb. 17) was very good.

Don Copler

People Who Believe the World Is 6,000 Years Old Are Nuts

It was amusing to read the letters by Max Wojcik ("Science Proves Evolution Is Invalid") and Dan Folland in the March 3 issue. Deidre Pike's article was not one-sided! I agree with the statements presented by the scientists, who favor the theory of evolution, such as Dr. Karl Flessa. He is correct!

It is a fact that there are evolutionary processes, which occur in nature. I do not, however, want to debate evolution here. Instead, my criticism is the pseudoscience of creationism, because those concepts go beyond just biology (and evolution). Creationism goes against the concept of "deep" time, involving durations of time of millions and billions of years, and what is known in geology, geophysics, astronomy, cosmology and other disciplines, which confirm that the planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Also, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. To believe that the universe, in general, and Earth, in particular, are only 6,000 years old is just plain nonsense! Creationism is a pseudoscience! It is not a product of scientific research and authentic scholarship, even though it is marketed as a science. Instead, it is a support of religious dogma, based upon literal interpretation of the Bible. I have NO interest in religious dogma!

To believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old is as ridiculous and nonsensical as believing in a flat Earth, when we all know that the Earth is spherical. It is also amazing that they want to teach children in schools that the universe is only 6,000 years old! How ridiculous!

Wolfgang Golser