What with Jimmy Boegle, Editor, slurping up margaritas while floating somewhere along the Mexican coast, the task of alerting our observant blog audience to the posting of a new issue has been left to me. So, look to the right-hand column and see all the alt-weekly goodness which has been propagated for your continued elucidation. Feel free to comment on the week’s contents here. Thank you!
This article appears in Oct 11-17, 2007.
From looking at that front page, great use of typography and great cover image. I look forward to reading it thoroughly as always.
One comment on the Bee-Giffords race. The Bee campaign is trying to deflect away from their poor fundraising effort by arguing that they did it in a month. The effort to get him to run (and others out) has been going on a long time. You usually get max. contributions in your 1st quarter. He is also the Senate pres…a chance toinfluence and access the agenda for next year.
With all that, he was outraised by Giffords in what was a run-of-the-mill quarter for her.
The story should be that Giffords outraises Bee AND that he is further behind. He began the quarter down $941K…he is now down over a million.
a friend of mine turned me on to a fun game anyone can play with danehy’s column.
everytime he writes the name of a minority group, or makes a reference to a minority replace it with the word “jew” or something stereotypically “jewish” and shazaam! the writing transports you back to the days of nazi germany propaganda.
for example: instead of “Those wacky Mexicans sure make the news interesting”
switch it to:
“Those wacky Jews sure make the news interesting”
anyone squirm a bit?
weird huh?
That’s bullshit, King Marlow. Danehy’s column doesn’t have a bigoted ring to it — he’s writing about a legitimate issue: Whether to deport criminals who are illegal aliens. “Those wacky Mexicans sure make the news interesting” is the headline and as I understand it, headlines are written by editors, not writers. So blame the editor, not Danehy.
Also: Go look up “Godwin” on Wikipedia. You are a classic Godwin-abuser.
Speaking of B.S., this line from Danehy’s column is pure crap:
“I have wildly mixed feelings on flags in general. Since good, decent people have actually given their lives in defense of our flag, I can’t really downplay its significance.”
Hey, Danehy. Nobody has ever died defending the flag. Got it? Nobody. They might have died defending what the flag represents (i.e. The United States), but they didn’t die defending the flag.
I’m so sick of this pathetic statement. “My dad died for the flag!” No he didn’t, idiot. And if he did he was a moron.
Found a typo: “But the transit company has only antidotal evidence regarding the public response to this change.”
Typos can be fixed in the online HTML, right?
— that’s bullshit, King Marlow. Danehy’s column doesn’t have a bigoted ring to it — he’s writing about a legitimate issue: Whether to deport criminals who are illegal aliens.
you are correct re: my example.
that racist headline was written by another staff member not danhey (i assume).
but there is no denying the subtext of the column is the kind of thing polly digs (pure cracker).
it rambles in and out of all sorts of mexican innuendo (and out the other): flags, crime percentages (for some reason danehy uses mexican and illegal alien as one and the same. like those crime stats::: were all the illegal from mexico? he’s not really clear on this) then it goes off into ESPN and about accents and so on.
the whole thing does have the ring of bigotry to me.
rings clear as bell in fact.
classic danhey.
and oh yeah: lets not forget danhey does joseph goebbels proud starting his column with:
“News from the Hispanic world”
then goes on with his rambling cracker rant.
i’m really not sure why you think it was about deporting criminals who are illegal aliens.
it ain’t about that at all.
Comparing Danehy to Gobbels is hysterical. Why do you want to trivialize the Holocaust? (Did you ever look up “Godwin”?)
That said, I looked at Danehy’s column again. We are in general agreement about Danehy’s column having questionable undercurrents.
A few more things I disagree with (in addition to his “they died for the flag” garbage, which has no business coming out of any educated person’s mouth, let alone in an alternative newsweekly):
— “We’re a bad-ass country and we’ve earned our bad-ass status.” Pathetic appeal to jingoism.
— “If Mexicans wants to fly their flag above ours in Mexico, that’s fine. It’s their country.” ‘It’s their country’… Really, Danehy? Thanks for that nugget of informativeness.
— “As a matter of fact, I probably take more offense at South Carolina flying its racist Confederate flag than I do the Mexican flag at the Desert Museum.” WTF is with the word “probably” in this sentence? WTF wimpy ass statement is that when you add the word “probably”?
— “…See, he was convicted of sexual assault of a minor in 2004 and was deported. I would like to know which panel of geniuses came up with the idea of deporting felons.” Danehy is no genius either if he thinks what was most likely a statutory rape charge is on the same level of murder, armed robbery or aggravated assault. (Thanks for denying us important information about the nature of his crime, Danehy.)
“Let’s see, you robbed a bank in Chicago. You’ve been found guilty. Your punishment is that you can’t be in Chicago for the next few weeks. Or days, depending on how good you are at what you do.” Nice job switching the example to fit your argument, Danehy. Very dishonest of you.
“Oh, yeah, the guy’s name is Mateo Cruz-Cruz. I understand the whole thing with the hyphenated names, mom’s family and dad’s. I also realize that Cruz is a fairly common name. But there’s no damn way I’d walk around with that tag. “ Here Danehy switches from a serious issue to a really uninspired and worthless joke.
“And they all have one thing in common: They have thick accents when they speak English. I don’t understand it.” This trivial commentary does not belong next to a serious editorial about issues pertaining to immigration and deportation.
“A Phoenix police officer was shot and killed recently by a guy who had been stopped for a minor offense.” After discussing sports announcers with thick Latin accents, Danehy immediately switches back to a serious, violent topic. WTF?
“The shooter was in this country illegally, having already been arrested and deported earlier, only to have snuck back into the country.” Check your AP style book on the word “snuck.” (Where is the editor?)
“The police officer, a two-time cancer survivor who had nixed desk duty in order to return to the streets, was shot in the face and died a horrible death.” Nice cliche’d redundancy: “Died a horrible death.” Do people die horrible lives? Do people die wonderful deaths? Just a style point here.
“The Phoenix-area newspapers…” Newspaper(s)? Plural?
“…were flooded with letters, many of which made the argument that the tragedy never should have occurred because the criminal never should have been walking the streets of the United States of America.” Look at all the cliches: “flooded with letters,” “walking the streets,” and then rounded out with the jingoistically written-out “the United States of America” (as opposed to “the U.S.”).
“…In an editorial, the Republic stated that of the 10 police officers and sheriffs who have been killed in recent years in that area, only three had been killed by people who were in this country illegally. So, only 30 percent of the cops gunned down in the line of duty died at the hands of illegals. That makes us all feel much better.” This is a hot-button issue that Danehy is handling in a hot-button way: Appeal to emotion. Why does Danehy pull all his statistics from editorials that are pulling their statistics from someplace else? Three out of ten is a specific number, not a statistic that can then be extrapolated outwards to “30 percent” of all violent crime. We don’t know the circumstances of the three police deaths; chances are they weren’t random (i.e. they occurred during criminal investigations that were likely to bring police in contact with violent immigrants).
There’s no denying that illegal immigration issues are serious. But Danehy’s approach adds nothing to the debate. Most of his arguments have been made elsewhere. Is Danehy just trying to get letters? Why did he sandwich trivial quibbles about Latin-themed issues (ESPN etc.) between serious issues?
I get the feeling that whoever wrote the headline was a little disgusted with Danehy and just threw his hands up and wrote “Those wacky Mexicans are at it again” or whatever because the article was such a hodge-podge.
— Comparing Danehy to Gobbels is hysterical. Why do you want to trivialize the Holocaust?
i wasn’t trying to “trivialize the holocaust.”
it was meant to be over-the-top so. when you noted “comparing danehy to gobbels is hysterical” that was my lame attempt at humor.
reading the rest of what you wrote we’re on the same page pretty much.
so i’d like to edit my previous post and replace gobbels with carl rove.
To “insert psuedonym here,” The typo has been corrected online.
Thanks Irene.
I aughta abbreviate this psuedonym, partially because the joke got really stale really quick. (Barb against the King withheld)
besides that, it’s spelled pseudonym.
tucson weekly staff.
viva freedom of speech.
and god dog bless danehy’s pointy little head.
but i’m curious: does anyone find his ramblings this week even mildly racist?
any thoughts on sam and my comments in this thread?
i’ve worked in restaurants and other establishments where a co-worker espousing sentiments that included racism, sexism, gender prejudice was cause to speak out.
but at the weekly it seems danhey is embraced as a slightly dotty old uncle with quaint antiquated opinions. but everyone loves him so he live on.
and he goes on to print his diatribes with headlines equally questionable.
so whats the deal?
perhaps i’m missing something.
if so my eyes are wide open.
but dialogue por favor cause as you know silence equals death.
(and just to get it out of the way ahead of time: yes, yes i know i’m a dick, coward, tucson weekly writer wanna-be, with no write to be asking these questions. now can we discuss danehy?)
i thought i could prime the conversation pump some food for thought on the subject if the weekly et. al. is interested in this sort of discussion re: danehy’s collumn:
“In recent years minorities have achieved a long overdue media presence. But crucial issues of portrayal and participation remain to be resolved.”
source: http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article231.html
I am not sure Danehy is exactly racist. I think true racism/bigotry involves a thought process of believing that you are genetically superior. I think Danehy is more like the average person, with an ignorance and distaste built up over time. He probably considers his own culture superior to certain other cultures (which are grounded in lower classes) without really examining why.
I think as long as we’re going to ask these questions about Danehy we ought to also ask them of ourselves. King Marlow are you completely free of bias, bigotry, racism, prejudice? If you are walking down a dark alley (to use a hackneyed example) and a black man is walking toward you, are you more concerned than if a white man approaches you?
My take on the matter is this: Minorities have a higher distribution in lower classes. If you take all Latinos, or all blacks, and study statistics on their income levels, probably 70% of them are in lower classes. If you do the same study on “whites” (vague term, that) the statistic is probably more like 30%. There is a correlation between income level, education, and crime. Therefore one’s personal experience with minorities is more likely to involve negative aspects than one’s personal experience with majority groups.
There are exceptions to this which make the analysis more difficult. Asians have a lower incidence of crime and higher education. I am not sure exactly why this is, but there are some possibilities such as family strictness and tendencies to work in certain fields. I dunno. My own ignorance is creeping up on me here.
The whole analysis of these issues is a minefield of possible false premises and assumptions. I don’t think anybody wants to consider himself a racist. Most people want to think their viewpoint is a common-sense one. I doubt Danhey considers himself a bigot. I am not sure why Danehy chooses to continually harp on minorities though. There are so many subjects to discuss in this world — why return, again and again, to rap music? There is sloppiness to the way he approaches the subject too. Danehy’s column includes the old trope, “I have many friends who are [minority].” He probably does though. Isn’t he a high school coach? He may be in a position where he comes into contact with lots of minorities and feels that, on this basis, he has the authority to discuss the matter.
I have known many intelligent people who harbored racist tendencies. I don’t know what to make of them. One is a PhD who lived in Tennessee (hey, that rhymes). Once during a conversation she let something racist-sounding about blacks slip, and I responded that it sounded racist, and she said, “You haven’t had to live with them.” I imagine being the victim of crimes or other unpleasantness by a particular group would create a bias.
The one thing I would ask of Danehy is that if he’s projecting his own prejudices and opinions out to the world, he at least pick up some well-researched books on the matter first. (Books are only a little heavier than a TV remote.) Being “the average joe” doesn’t cut it. We’re all average joes and we don’t need some other average joe to feel cameraderie with. I read the paper for more than that.
— I think as long as we’re going to ask these questions about Danehy we ought to also ask them of ourselves. King Marlow are you completely free of bias, bigotry, racism, prejudice? If you are walking down a dark alley (to use a hackneyed example) and a black man is walking toward you, are you more concerned than if a white man approaches you?
no. i’m deeply programmed from birth with bias. how can one not be that way for anyone?
the trick for me is recognizing it in myself and working to overcome it.
and when i see it in media how can i not speak out?
when i read a column like the one that ran last week.
one of my issues w/danehy is it appears the weekly agrees w/ the danehy point of view.
for example that headline “those wacky americans” supports the stereotypes danehy spouts was written by a weekly editor (at least that is the assumption based on other comments here).
his so called “news from the hispanic world” is a laundry list of stereotypes. and that list is given legitimacy as fact by being published in a paper where readers expect to read truth.
now using danehys statistical analysis heres something his line of logic could prove: since a high number of men and women in prison engage in homosexual acts, homosexuality equals criminals.
doesn’t make sense right?
yet dan-o uses that sort of logic to paint “hispanics” as criminals etc.
if danehy decides to use eugenics to prove racial is superiority will the weekly give him the sapce to do so?
it’s a dangerous and slippery slope danehy skates on because he mixes fact and prejudice and blends them into a soup served to readers as journalistic truth.
perhaps racist is too strong.
if so i apologize.
but certainly ignorant cracker journalist does apply.
— for example that headline “those wacky americans” …
make that mexicans. it’s early and i’ve not yet had my cup of morning meth.
also re:
“but certainly ignorant cracker journalist does apply.”
let me take back the cracker part as well.
that language only inflames.
apologies to dan-o for that one.
so weekly scribes who run this here blog and stuff whats the dealy-o on dan-os column this week?
i’m guessing by the silence everyone’s hunky-dory with it.
never would have thunk that was the case.
but since silence equals death is the “alternative” to speaking out, perhaps this dearth of blogging fits the bill.
I think Danehy “phoned it in” for his column. (I feel like his enabler.) Maybe he was tired from something in his life and the deadline was fast approaching, and he had a vague idea of writing about immigration, but he didn’t have enough material to fill space, so he started tossing a bunch of little pieces together, and out vomited his column, complete with racist undertones and redneck cracker overtones. Ta da. Here comes the hate mail.
I am not involved in the Weekly and have no idea why nobody is replying. My theory is that nobody is replying because I’ll bet much of the staff of the Tucson Weekly thinks Tom is as hacky as you do. Opinions are like arse-holes and everybody has one, unless they had some sort of horrible freak injury involving a vacuum cleaner and a buttplug.
You’d think Danehy would have been clued into these critiques by now and come here to defend himself. Perhaps he is too busy hanging his head in shame and reflecting on all that’s hateful in himself. Or perhaps he, and other members of the Tucson Weekly, don’t feel that they have to answer to some anonymous crank out in the internet who seems to exist primarily to pick at whatever editorial weaknesses he can find, much like a gnome that rock-climbs up and down Paul Bunyan’s naked body looking for little scabs to drill into with a corkscrew, in hopes of drinking the fine wine of somebody else’s shame.
I think Danehy should at the very least acknowledge that he wrote a flaccid column. Even his usually clever little turns of phrase had the journalistic equivalent of beer-induced cheese-dick syndrome.
Ya also gotta wonder about a guy who is (1) against deporting illegal aliens, and (2) against re-releasing them in the United States. That’s what his column said, and it’s a wonder his head didn’t explode after that logical equivalent of an epileptic seizure.
— My theory is that nobody is replying because I’ll bet much of the staff of the Tucson Weekly thinks Tom is as hacky as you do.
thats my take too.
all i’m asking is they come clean with us readers.
why all this silence?
do people fear danehy donning a chainsaw and hockey mask?
the weekly media watch collumn happilly tells all about the media in town, but when it comes to contemplating their own reflection we get nada.
perhaps a weekly ombudsman is needed.
king marlow ombudsman. or better yet om-guiness-man.
yeah that’ll do.
— Or perhaps he, and other members of the Tucson Weekly, don’t feel that they have to answer to some anonymous crank out in the internet who seems to exist primarily to pick at whatever editorial weaknesses he can find, much like a gnome that rock-climbs up and down Paul Bunyan’s naked body looking for little scabs to drill into with a corkscrew, in hopes of drinking the fine wine of somebody else’s shame.
yep. that me in a nutshell. although instead of a corkscrew i use the rabbit. works much better and saves wear and tear on the ol’ wrists.
No, no — it’s just that you wore out the topic. Go play on craigslist R&R for a while if you want to fight racism.
I haven’t replied because I was on vacation for 10 days and have been on deadline since I returned on Sunday. Having said that, I let our columnists have their say. Sometimes they do great work; sometimes, yes, they do phone them in. But I let them have their say, period, unless they are libeling someone, pretty much. The end.
I haven’t replied because Marley has acted like a total ass-clown since he arrived at our e-casa. Now he wants us to hang out and shoot the shit with him? No thanks. I’ve got neither the time nor the inclination to waste on him. I recognize that this response will give him the validation he appears to so desperately need and we’ll get another couple dozen belches of rambling spew from him, but this is my final word on anything he has to say. I’m back to ignoring him.
Wow, you guys kill me. First off, I now understand that there is a certain protocol to displaying flags. (About 50 people e-mailed me with the information and I thank them all.) Plus, I don’t write the headlines. As for the other stuff, am I to believe that the endpoint for enlightment on matters of race (as well as gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation) is a place where nobody talks about anything? Obviously, there’s no way for anyone to prove that he/she is NOT racist. I suppose I could panic and trot out all my black, Asian, and Native American friends, as well as my Hispanic wife and kids, but all it would take is for one pathetic, guily white liberal to scream “Racism!” and the tired battle is joined. Find one person who knows me who would call me a racist and then you’ll have something. In the mean time…Happy Blogging.
hmmm….
jimmy/jim you guys really have no problem w/shoddy journalism chock full of racial over tones?
i expected better of you both.
attack my character all you want but how about the points raised by sam or ming?
are any of them worth a comment?
if not, again i understand the weekly cya, but its still a bit sad. you guys cheer on the new times for taking a stance but then support apparently inadvertently racist, yet racist journalism, none-the-less.
and dan-o just because you marry someone outside your race does not mean you are not subject to racism.
see, for myself, i’m racist as hell.
how could i not be growing up in america?
i’ve been programmed by society and media such as yourself from day one.
but again i work every day to over come those lessons and be more than i am.
it is a constant struggle, but a struggle worth the fight.
perhaps it that is not the same for you.
perhaps you are pure.
and i do appreciate your “why some of my best friends are…” defense.
but all that said i’ve just got to ask: what on earth was the point of your column this week? was it really all the hispanic news of the land?
and jimmy/jim what was the deal w/that headline?
you guys throw bricks at all the local media but expect to live in a glass house?
deep down you know the score.
think about it.
would you support a column that uses dan-o math to show:
homosexual acts occur in prison therefore homosexual acts lead to crime?
would you support a column in favor of eugenics?
admitting there is a problem is the first step towards improvement.
and i think your tucson readers deserve better.
one other note, i’m also guessing by the response that jimmy/jim/dan-o are also dismissing any connection to the points made in article i posted earlier re: media and stereotypes and the recent column?
http://www.medialit.org/readin…..le231.html
er ah make that…
http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article231.html
i really thought the following was applicable about your responsibility as journalists and the consequences (intentional or otherwise) of your words:
First, whether intentionally or unintentionally, both the news and the entertainment media ‘teach” the public about minorities, other ethnic groups and societal groups, such as women, gays, and the elderly. Second, this mass media curriculum has a particularly powerful educational impact on people who have little or no direct contact with members of the groups being treated.
I get where Jimmy, Jim and Tom are coming from. Their responses were roughly what I would expect and make sense to me.
I am watching as an outsider. I have been watching King Marlow and I think, whoever you are, you probably could just stand to take a deep breath and back away for a while.
I like writing here, I agree with some of the things you have said, and I find some other things ill-conceived. The Tucson Weekly is a small publication with a small staff in a relatively small city. It does the best it can. It has published some excellent stuff, and then at times it publishes work that is less so.
Danehy has been writing since….the 1980s? He’s written about everything under the sun. At times he’s been one of the Tucson Weekly’s most reliably entertaining and interesting writers. Nearly two decades of work definitely buys a lot of clout, even if it doesn’t get anybody off the hook for anything.
King Marlow, I think if you’re going to knock various Tucson Weekly writers (Boegle’s editorials, Tom’s column, etc.) then you should offer something positive as well. You can write just about anything here as long as it isn’t nasty or whatever. So write your own column(s). Write your own view of immigration issues. Write the editorial you wish Jimmy would write.
Imagine a life spent criticizing things and never praising them, or never creating things of your own.
— Imagine a life spent criticizing things and never praising them, or never creating things of your own.
sure sounds pretty horrible. not the sort of life i’d want to live. of course king marlow is only one mask on the one dimensional cyber-hydra.
and i agree some of the points you make.
but that said::: as long as media (in particular so-called alternative media) decides to publicly embrace and not condemn false stereotypes types presented as “fact” to readers/viewers by their writers then i’ll use voice whatever voice i can find, in this case this forum, and speak out.
i may not be popular but i’ve got people talking about some issues and that was the point. from what i’ve heard the same is true in weekly-world central so in to paraphrase george w. douche: mission accomplished.
so i’m gladly moving on to the next item and look forward to next weeks edition. i will try and start a rating system. perhaps something a kin to the thorns and flowers. dicks and balls might work. i’ve got to ponder this a bit with a bottle of thunderbird beneath the congress street bridge, my shopping cart overflowing with ideas.
— So write your own column(s). Write your own view of immigration issues. Write the editorial you wish Jimmy would write.
great idea. jimmy send me a contact and i’ll start that “ask a dick” column for you. better yet make me you ombudsperson. hook me up to the wick teat and i’ll gladly set the fuckers straight.
Anyone is welcome to pitch column proposals and/or topics at any time. But we don’t run pieces under pseudonyms.
— Anyone is welcome to pitch column proposals and/or topics at any time. But we don’t run pieces under pseudonyms.
thank you jimmy.
and as tempting to make $$$ is, i fear i can not join the side of corporate media, in my never ending pursuit of truth, justice, freedom and the american way.
i must remain deep undercover, hidden behind the mask of king marlow. my enemies are many but my friends are true.
who knows what fluff lurks in the heart of editors?
the shadow dick knows.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
God, I LOVE it when people refer to us as the “corporate media” when Wick’s headquarters sit in that media capital of Sierra Vista, AZ. It makes my nipples hard. Thanks, Marlow!
way to blow out the table
Hey, Marlow: I had to delete your last comment due to the fact that all the periods you put in FUBAR’d the page layout, due to some issues with WordPress. If you want to repost that comment sans the periods, feel free.
— Hey, Marlow: I had to delete your last comment due to the fact that all the periods you put in FUBAR’d the page layout
no sweat.