A response to a response ("An ... Interesting Response to 'You Screwed Up,'" Mailbag, June 11) to "You Screwed Up" (May 28): Start with this premise: We, the electorate, choose people to represent us in the Legislature after ascertaining that they have knowledge of how our government works, and have sense enough to make sound judgments. I do not want the job! Neither do I want to have these representatives shift the responsibility of law-making back to me with ballot propositions. I would prefer to show my dissatisfaction by voting someone else to have his/her seat. This, my friend, is "term limits," and it works very well in Congress.
If, on the other hand, my representative is satisfactory, I want her/him to remain in office, serve on important committees and form coalitions with other good people. I always vote for a pay raise to attract the best legislators Arizona has to offer.
I agree with Jim Nintzel: We screwed up.
I want to thank you for highlighting over the past few months several cover stories about the positive things people are doing to make a difference in the Tucson community. Specifically, I really enjoyed the articles about Matt Moon's work with refugees ("Local Heroes," Dec. 25, 2008), the articles by youth at Voices Inc. and the recent article about the Ironwood Tree Experience's outreach with Burmese refugees ("Go Outside!" June 4). In these tough economic times (and, for that matter, in all times), it is critical to be reminded that there are positive things happening in our lives and communities.
In the past, I tired of the Weekly's focus on what's wrong (political woes, etc.) with Tucson and Arizona, though I recognize these stories are important in raising awareness and holding folks accountable.
I hope we can continue to see a balanced Tucson Weekly that offers us both a reality check and hope.
Regarding O'Sullivan's June 11 column: Please, Cathy, follow your own advice, and remove yourself from the gene pool—quickly. The Earth and its inhabitants would be most grateful.
As for the idea of not procreating ... you are a liberal, which means you think a lot of your intelligence. If liberals such as yourself stop reproducing, won't that mean stupid people (you would call them conservatives) will be the only ones doing so? That would mean the future would be full of stupid conservatives. Idiocracy much?
Really, you're smarter than this, right? If not, that's fine with me. Take it up with Frito Pendejo.
Catherine O'Sullivan, you think too much! You speak from a Darwinist perspective while denying its apparent rule over our lives and breeding habits. If we choose to stop breeding, are we not railing against the very thing we are programmed to do? It sounds like a case of one's ideology attempting to eclipse one's own perception of reality.
If "nature" came up with the human race, and phasing us out or outright destroying us is predetermined through natural law, why fight it? There is no moral duty here, nor are there morals, period. The only thing that makes sense in this scenario is to do what we're programmed to do until it's finished. Trying to control "nature" is why practices like eugenics exist in the first place, and you've said you don't support that.
Thanks, Tom Danehy, for proving once again that you can't defend art and poetry, because there's nobody there to defend it against (June 11). You might as well tell David Aguirre and the management of MOCA that there's an ethical problem with ousting artists from their spaces without compensating them for their investment, or suddenly doubling rents just because that's the profit you ought to be making in a mathematically perfect world. You might as well ask Scott Stiteler and co., "Are you sure you guys know what you're doing?"
I would mention the proven 10-times-multiplier effect of art and culture on business, except that's the wrong motivation to suggest, even to assholes. You do art because you value the life of the mind and the adventure of consciousness ... and if you do it for some other motive, it will just turn into visual and literary Muzak. Even if that wasn't true, frankly, my dear, I just don't give a damn anymore what people like Tom or David or Stiteler think or do. Even if they did have a Scrooge moment and gave it up for cultural and charitable purposes, it would turn out just like a public endorsement by "W" and wreck everything it proposed to fund.
How weird that three articles in the same paper, and one in the Arizona Daily Star, all seem to converge on the fact that there are so many people who feel nothing for others? The black hole that once was Congress Street is growing.