Regarding the comment from frdmftr (Mailbag, Sept. 16), I suspect the freedom he's fighting for is the freedom to not have to contribute anything to the common good.
At the risk of generalizing about any group of people, the "tea partiers" appear to be incredibly self-centered people who love America, but intensely dislike most of the American people—namely, those who do not look like themselves, act like themselves or subscribe to their ideology.
Those who claim to love their country but refuse to pay for its upkeep should not be considered patriotic, and the notion that they should be allowed to keep all of their income because they "earned it all themselves" is a fantasy. Nobody acquires anything from a society without there being many others involved. I don't begrudge Bill Gates a dime, but I think even he would acknowledge that if it were not for the many technology developers who went before him—not to mention the millions of people who go to work so they can afford to buy a personal computer—then Windows would be worth only the cost of the CDs it comes on.
It takes a village, with all or most of its inhabitants contributing—in fact, it takes a lot of villages—to have a functioning democracy.
I am responding to the Tucson Weekly's coverage and choice of words regarding the clerk of the Superior Court race ("Courting Votes," Currents, Sept. 23), in particular the quote by Patricia Noland and the summation by the Weekly: "'I call her the Joe Sweeney of the clerk of the court (race),' Noland says, referring to the perennial crank candidate in Congressional District 7."
The Weekly's choice of words was not only poor, but completely inaccurate. My campaign platform addresses the necessary corrective action to take on real problems at the clerk's office, and is substantiated by real research and the actual information provided to my steering committee from the Pima County Human Resources Department and the clerk's H.R. person.
My vision for the court is simple: It's about operating a fiscally responsible organization on sound management principles to best serve the residents of Pima County, and on the unusual idea of holding elected officials accountable. Your newspaper does nothing like that. It spews opinions based on editor bias, in black and white, entrenched in selling ad space.
I believe my experience and qualifications, and my long-term history with the clerk's office, give the voter a chance to make a choice between a political candidate and a qualified candidate.
Clearly, my 2006 candidacy, which captured 46 percent of the vote, indicates a viable candidacy, not a crank candidacy. The voters are looking for leadership that doesn't make hollow promises, as Noland has.
Good article showing pros and cons of the streetcar plan ("A Streetcar Named Development," Sept. 16). However, Campus Acquisitions is our development partner, and we have not sold our Euclid Avenue project. We have no intentions to do so.
Michael P. Noonan
Thank you to Randy Serraglio and the Tucson Weekly for the recent article concerning the targeting of bicycle riders by Tucson police (Sept. 2).
Bicycles reduce traffic congestion, fuel consumption and long-term health costs. In return for using a vehicle that benefits everyone, cyclists are yelled at and cursed. They are constantly being run over, seriously injured and often killed by careless and/or angry motorists. Now they are being cited by police officers (ironically within a few blocks of a sign claiming Tucson to be a "bicycle friendly community").
Ninety percent of accidents involving bicycles and cars are caused by the motorists, not the cyclists. This is according to a recent study published in The New York Times that examined 2,752 bike-car accidents; the article also points out that most people incorrectly assume the cyclists are at fault, "a result of reckless or aggressive riding."
Just a few months ago (Feb. 25), Tom Danehy wrote an article that betrayed this attitude. He was dismayed that the city of Tucson was held partly responsible for the death of a cyclist that was struck by an alcohol-impaired driver. He obviously has never attempted to commute via bicycle in Tucson, where poorly planned and executed bike lanes suddenly disappear, and the majority of drivers refuse to grasp the fact that cyclists have just as much legal right to operate on any city street. Like many other motorists, Danehy seemed genuinely upset that someone would be foolish enough to actually exercise these rights, and perhaps he is correct.
Handing out citations to cyclists is easy, and we can pretend that it will promote safety, but it never will, because cyclists do not kill cyclists; motorists do.
In "Modernism Memorialized" (Visual Arts, Sept. 30), the photo caption was incorrect; the home pictured is actually the the Diamos house. We apologize for the mistake.