To the Editor,
I want to extend my congratulations on the ability of The Weekly to maintain perfect surroundings for a perfect staff. It's rare indeed when such perfection is attained.
In Dave Devine's "Solar Sinkhole?" (Tucson Weekly, June 19) and in surrounding commentary within The Skinny, the references to individuals and city programs is not only disrespectful, but unnecessary. Devine's quest for "where's the money?" for utilization at other city locations in lieu of Civano continues the cynical display of worthless journalism by your organization. No matter what the article and topic under discussion, optimism and positive perspectives are missing from your vocabulary.
The Weekly's continued cynical remarks have contributed to the disillusioment of this great city by many of its citizens. The opportunity to maintain integrity, self-esteem and respect which could have meant continued support of its elected officials to perform their difficult tasks among constant over-analyzation, armchair quarterbacking and second-guessing. Perhaps, emotions could have positively stirred promotion towards desired annexation of the county's large population into our city's limits which has been delayed for decades.
We have half of the population who claim to be in Tucson, Arizona, living in the county. Over the last 20 years this has cost us dearly in receiving our own tax dollars returned from the state revenues for our purposes. I would guess that probably a billion dollars has been lost in the last 20 years. I believe your cynical criticism is directly responsible for this dilemma.
At one time, perhaps, your commentary would have been fun and entertaining. Now, it's simply annoying, cynical, and, more importantly, costly to those of us who love Tucson.
Please remove our city's name, Tucson, from your publication's name. When can we expect a check for a billion dollars from you and your perfect staff at the Cynical Weekly?
--Joseph Maher, Jr.
Editor's reply: We're responsible for a billion bucks in lost revenue, as well as the widespread disillusionment in this burg? At last! We're finally getting the credit we deserve!
To the Editor,
Let me get this, uh, straight. One of your writers, (Danehy) smears lesbians and gays with bigoted remarks ("Out Rage," Tucson Weekly, May 8) and you keep him on as a writer...because? Then you reward him with a front-page feature story ("Success Stories," Tucson Weekly, July 10). What's next, a column written by David Duke? Maybe The Weekly should just merge with Good News.
Let's say one of your writers tells us that blacks and Jews are inferior in God's eyes and have no right to complain or be seen. How long would you keep that writer on your staff? It would be an insult to your readers and your own professed standards to keep that writer. How is it different that Danehy can defame lesbians and gays with his ignorance and spite and continue to work there?
Danehy can write warm and fuzzy pieces about the average guy, their wives and children, and their sports equipment. But we know the truth. His article was clear. He is an unapologetic bigot and queer basher.
Fire him. His absence will leave an opening for a talented journalist. Writing a weekly column about relevant events in civil rights, sexuality and culture would be so refreshing. (Your recent flurry of little queer articles over the past couple of weeks is not usual for The Weekly. How much of that was due to the angry letters you had regarding Danehy?)
As it is, your paper has a known hate-monger sharing his innermost feelings. It's abundantly clear that Danehy likes sports and feels uncomfortable around queers. Rest assured we know Danehy feels superior about family values, life in particular, and just plain feels superior in general. He's the poor, bigoted, queer-bashing, average guy that we're all supposed to greet with bittersweet compassion. Yawn. It's a waste of paper!
It's an insult to gays and lesbians!
Editor's Reply: We've fired him several times, but the white, Roman Catholic, breeder bastard refuses to leave. As for your near-hysteria over Danehy's column, which was primarily about the media manipulation inherent in the Ellen coming-out episode: Geez, get a life. If opining that the show was not particularly amusing, or pointing out that some people still have major trouble accepting the gay lifestyle--whatever the hell that is--amounts to "queer-bashing," it's time you grew a hide, cowpoke.
To the Editor,
Jeff Smith's "Elementary Lesson" (Tucson Weekly, July 10) was really good. He is one of the few at The Weekly who seems to recognize what is going on. We foothills dwellers do not want to be part of Tucson for good and sufficient reasons.
We foothills dwellers do not expect to save money. It will cost more to have our own community, but we don't want to be part of the City of Tucson. The City Council would rather feed the homeless than give the police a raise. The police come first, second and third in my book.
We recognize that the USA, Germany, England, Japan and other countries are developing a two-class society--upper and lower. There will be no jobs for most of the lower class and what little middle class remains will be competing for very few positions. Cities like Tucson will grow increasingly poor and unimportant in our society; the very reason for cities is disappearing. The city will be a location for the poor, the homeless and minorities. With email, phones and computers our cities are not needed any more. We may not like it, but that's what's happening.
One last point: If we have a two-class system, what will keep the lower class from revolting? Narcotics, of course. They are now legal in Arizona--who do you think voted for that? Nationwide, legality for narcotics is coming fast. The Border Patrol is just getting 5 percent of what comes across. The Tucson cops will tell you in private that drug enforcement is a "joke and a waste of time."
It's interesting to note that in the USA, 12 percent of the upper class already live in gated, guarded areas; there are now more private police than there are the public type. Does this tell you something? The two classes will be separated in living areas, schools, business, shopping, entertainment etc. They won't even see each other. On that basis the upper class is not going to support education for the lower class. Even if they would, there won't be any jobs for them. Narcotics are the answer.
I have a book, The End of the Middle Class, that has all the details of this change, but no one wants to publish it. Friends in the USA, Japan, England have read it and they say, "Yes, it is true."
--Stuart A. Hoenig
Editor's Reply: Hey, Stuart, maybe you could get your manuscript published if you just threatened to mail letter-bombs if your demands weren't met. Worked wonders for the other guy.
We Want Letters!
Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: email@example.com
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
| © 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth