Another One!

1. I have some gripes with your new Weekly issue. First up, the O’Sullivan column has a really messed-up first paragraph.

   Whom should I blame? The writer, or the editors? Please tell me and I will blame the proper person. I am ready to sling blame.

   The column is about the tragedy of the U of A’s budget cuts, and how great it is to have an edjimmacation — how liberal arts gives a person an appreciation for the finer things, and so on.

   But then O’Sullivan misspells Nathan Huffhines.

   If you’re arguing on behalf of education, how about looking up a name? That’s the educated thing to do. It’s not Nathan Huffheins. It’s Huffhines.

   Which he changed to Arizona. Why? Because would you buy furniture from a store called Unpainted Huffhines?

   If you can’t find lower prices anywhere, his name ain’t Nathan Arizona — which it isn’t.

   Then, to make matters worse, in the same paragraph O’Sullivan misspells bric-a-brac as “brick-a-brack.” What is brick-a-brack? Is that like kitschybricks?

   Is the Tucson Weekly’s spell-check computer function on the fritz? (O’Sullivan does admit to being a closet technophobe, although if you’re writing about it in a public forum, you’re kinda out of the closet.)

   So let’s see: Misspelled Huffhines. Misspelled bric-a-brac. Says she’s in closet while out of closet. What else?

   Here’s what else: The McDonoughs are sending Nathan Jr. to Arizona State.

2. Oh and P.S.: How do you know that Nathan Huffhines didn’t go to college? He is obviously a pretty smart guy. He knows that you can’t sell leaf tables and no chairs, because chairs, you got a dinette set, but no chairs, you got dick. Not everybody knows that. Most people couldn’t find their butt if it had bells on it. And if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass a-hoppin’.

3. I also have something to say about Gretchen Nielsen’s Guest Commentary.

   Gretchen, are you out there? Because I really want to know what is wrong with you. Did your mom drop you on your head when you were little?

   I ask because your article, subtitled “A jury-duty summons leads to an unexpected experience,” is the most self-indulgent nonsense I have ever read.

   Here is the lowdown:

   — Gretchen is summoned to jury duty for a murder trial
   — The judge askes if Gretchen has biases relevant to the case
   — Gretchen explains that she was arrested 5 times for protests
   — She explains each protest scenario: Iraq this, depleted-uranium that
   — Then she tells the judge she couldn’t send anybody to prison because it’s such an awful, awful place (she toured the Florence prison)
   — The judge politely dismisses Gretchen.

   That’s terrific! Good for you! By the way, what is your column about? How cool you are?

   You left the most important thing out of the column, and I really want to know the answer: If prison is too horrible for criminals, then what do you propose be done with a person convicted of murder?

   That’s the giant question-mark hovering over your entire column.

   I hate when a writer describes a scenario, and then doesn’t bother to answer the most pressing question raised by that scenario.

4. P.S. I take it back, that column is not the most self-indulgent nonsense I have ever read. That’s an honor I reserve for the works of Elizabeth Wurtzel.

5. I too would like to know what Gretchen Nielsen thinks should be done with convicted murderers. If not prison, then what, Gretchen? 30 lashes with a whip? Community service at a soup kitchen?

Comments are closed.