To the Editor:
For the past few months, you have been including in your issues some gross examples of greed, power-mongering and stupidity coming out of our state Legislature. Numerous examples exist of bills being created in direct defiance of common sense, legality and public opinion.
Our state Legislature seems to be totally out of control! Now, along with our political cesspool, we have the various militia groups in the news. Not only do many in these groups have direct connections with some of our local and state politicians, but they also share at least two things in common: a hatred of the federal government and of laws designed to protect the environment. The politicians hell-bent on negating environmental laws are bedfellows with the bogus, so-called "Wise Use" groups, who are out to take as much from the land as they can get. The extremists in those groups are, in turn, the kind who belong to the militia groups that live on hate, fear and threats.
I think it should be clear to everyone now that the Wise Users, politicians and assorted states' righters, who preach a return of federal land and power back to the states, can all be lumped under the same label of "Not To Be Trusted." For all the ills of the federal government, it is absolutely necessary that it continue to keep and manage the lands it has in the West, and not turn it over to the local and state petty tyrants.
Love That Rush
To the Editor,
Can we have a little more of your conservative writer's viewpoint expressed, please? It's a little sickening to view once again the idiocy of your reporter's vapid thoughts on a link between Limbaugh and Oklahoma City.
Maybe as conservatives we should get on our knees and thank him for not drawing a direct line from one to the other, while the truth is that liberals possess far more blame for Oklahoma City than conservatives. Just what do you think that wacko who built the bomb was responding to, Limbaugh? Limbaugh is for law and order, not radical dissent. He is for individual responsibility, not blaming society. It is my contention that liberalism promotes crime by telling people that they are victims, and therefore perhaps justified in breaking the law. No one is truly responsible for anything--it's racism, it's rich people, it's "inequality" (as if any two people are truly equal in anything). So go ahead and do whatever you want?
I suppose I'm a mind-numbed Limbaugh robot without an original thought in my whole life if I say that the wackos who did this are to blame first and foremost. My point is that political hay can be baled from both sides of the aisle on this, and that McVeigh fell into the trap of thinking he was a victim, too.
To the Editor:
Regarding Tom Danehy's "Broadcast Views" (Tucson Weekly, May 4): It's a good column. I believe there is no political implication meant by President Clinton in his statement, made controversial. In short, there is the old saying, "If the shoe fits, put it on," which the far-off right did. As for suggesting that Amendment rights are being violated, it isn't a freedom attack to suggest not calling "Fire!" in a crowded place.
I am beginning a one-typewriter campaign which I call "Boycott the Bastards." Barbara Reynolds of USA Today uses the phrase "commercializing hate." I target station managers and advertisers in Limboland with a one-line, "aren't you ashamed to...." I have the genius and skills to mount a larger program, but at 84 lack chutzpah.
| © 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth