Mailbag

Tuttle's Right: 'Passion' Was Misguided

Ah, poor Mel the Misguided ("What's Next For Mel Gibson After His Passion of the Christ Violence Fest?" March 18). We remember when he made flicks we didn't have to seek dispensations from the Rabbi to go see, films in which he jumped out of top-story windows into swimming pools with some girl's underwear between his teeth. Methinks he jumped once too often and forgot to fill the pool.

I know, the Jews killed Jesus (head bow here), but many messiah-type/hippie nonconformists of their day were likewise executed.

It strikes me that every time this society begins to gain a foothold on the notoriety that Sodom and other unspellable biblical city enjoyed, some bloke with a holier-than-thou attitude and a propensity to milk money from religious right-wingers who heretofore were busy molesting altar boys, raises his ugly head and spoils everything.

Shame on you, Mel! We liked you better with panties in your mouth. May you spend extra centuries in Purgatory, since you acknowledge it to be the Catholic-sanctioned holding tank before heaven. It might even have a DVD player, and you can plug in your personal copy of The Passion of the Christ and be able to play it over and over until you're forced to blurt out what the thinking public now says: "This is merely violence for violence's sake, an insult to Christians and a veritable slap in the face to Jews!"

Lollie Butler

Tuttle's Wrong: 'Passion' Was God's Work

Too bad Tuttle missed the point, but then, as it is said, "for the message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. ... " (1 Corinthians 1:18).

I sensed a bit of jealousy coming from Tuttle when reading her article, which was designed to trash Gibson by twisting his intentions and movie into something it was not intended to be. I found it quite perverse for the mind (and spirit) of Connie Tuttle to refer to the movie's portrayal of the crucifixion of Jesus as "pornography." (What's going on for her?)

I am in no position to judge Mel Gibson, poor Connie Tuttle or even other Christians (as Tuttle does in her article), but whatever Gibson's intent, God managed to use his work for good. I know at least one person (and I am sure there are others) who, after seeing the movie, decided to re-dedicate his life to the Lord and let go of destructive habits. What better way to reach people "living on the edge" than through a blockbuster movie? Way to go, Mel!

Amy Bass

Tuttle Was Attacking Christians

I have never before picked up a copy of your paper. I may never again, but feel I should respond to a lengthy article by Connie Tuttle that is a clear attack on Christians.

Perhaps no one in your office bothered to read it before accepting it? Her article begins with the question, "What's next for Mel Gibson?" But the column is no real evaluation of his future plans or opportunities. It is snide, hateful, derogatory and deriding. It is clear she is handing down her own personal punishment to him, calling him "Gory Gibson" and "Mad Mel," for daring to make this movie. Some thoughtful consideration and not a whole lot of research on her part would have revealed that The Passion is probably the most accurate depiction of the beating that was inflicted on Jesus and the weapons that were used. But the film went far beyond that.

The intent of this letter is not to defend the movie or Mr. Gibson. My problem with Ms. Tuttle's article is that she goes far beyond any true evaluation of the movie and its maker. Her mindset is ever so clear and so her entire evaluation is totally not credible. She quickly moves from her attempt to discredit Gibson with childish name-calling and to derisive and condescending remarks about Christians. Those weapons, Mr. Editor, are common tools of hatred.

Mr. Editor, you are in charge of a publication that reaches and has the power to influence thousands of people. That means you have more responsibility than most, just as TV and radio personalities and elected officials do. Ms. Tuttle is certainly free to express her opinions, as I am. Printing opinions is one thing. Printing hatred is another.

Suzanne P. Jones

Is Boegle Sure He Wants to Call Himself 'Christian'?

Maybe Jimmy Boegle wants to think twice about saying he's a Christian. That puts him in some rather crazy company, as the Weekly found out from the response it got from the religious loonies ("Tucson Fundamentalism," March 25). I thought I was a Christian, too, until I took a good look at others who think they are Christians. They are crazy! Religion does that to people, and it has all through history, I think religion is to be avoided. Spirituality is not religion.

Barbara Duval

Devine Needs to Calm Down With Cops

The concept behind officers talking to you in an area with a history of burglaries is a legal concept called "reasonable suspicion." Yes, it has been upheld in the court system ("Suspect Identification," March 25).

Bottom line: If you have nothing to hide, why not identify yourself? Yes, yes, I know, "privacy advocate" and the "present police state." The rhetoric continues ...

Nathan Kelderman

Downing Doesn't Get the Modern-Day E.R.

Regarding Renée Downing's emergency department experience (March 25): Hello! Welcome to health care in the 21st century! The emergency nurse's ("receptionist"?) dilemma is thus: Of the 40 in the waiting room, there are 15 patients just like your brother, agonizing, with more arriving through both front and back doors. Each one truly deserves to be the next one seen, be it due to pain, life-threatening or potentially life-threatening conditions. Question: As the nurse, which one do you pick to be seen next? And perhaps as importantly, what can you possibly say to the others that AREN'T picked? For a plethora of reasons, E.R.s are so overloaded that we frequently cannot see everyone as soon as they should be seen; we scramble to do the very best we can.

And you want to throw the chart at us? There are no easy answers to this problem, but attacking those least responsible is cowardly.

Cheryl Falczyk

The System Is Broken, But Hospitals Are Doing the Best They Can

I felt my head crack open on the ceramic tile floor. I remember my feet still walking but they were stepping on my 125-pound German shepherd, hardly distinguishable in a room darkened by twilight. Instantly, I was flat on my back and my head hit the floor, hard. My husband, Roy, was at home and ran to me. After I lay on the floor for a few minutes, with my head on the pillow, Roy finally said, "Let me help you get up now," and I agreed, but could barely walk. I don't know how he got me to the car, but he did. I'm almost 70 years old, have Graves disease, heart disease, diabetes and asthma.

This story is not about me as much as it is the emergency room and the shortage of medical staff at our hospitals. In this case, it was the Tucson Medical Center. About two years ago, I had to go to the TMC emergency room and noticed nothing unusual. The care was efficient, nurses and doctors showed concern for their patients.

I had read in the newspaper about the shortage of medical personnel in Tucson but paid little attention. Little did I realize I'd be another victim in the future.

After we arrived at the E.R. entrance, someone came out with a wheelchair, helped me out of the car and pushed me inside the building. It was about two hours before I was seen by triage and six hours before I was taken in for care. I remember the doctor looked at my head, cut off some hair and sent me for a CAT scan. I really don't know how long I lay there in a makeshift room, where the cots were tiny and narrow with three patients shoved together in a room that might comfortably accommodate two.

I began to notice the staff was rushing about like maniacal idiots. How could anyone blame them? They did the best they could with insufficient help.

What can be done about this crisis in our hospitals? The TMC staff told me this situation exists at every hospital in Tucson. Will people have to die in emergency rooms in order to motivate medical and legal professions to find solutions to these grave problems?

Charlotte J. R. Wykoff

We're Not 'Conserving' Water, but Saving It for More Development

Let me get this straight about Winterhaven: Winterhaven, and the rest of us common folk, are supposed to "conserve" water ("Winterhaven Oozes Greed," Mailbag, March 18, and "Lawn and Order," Feb. 19). If we don't "conserve" water, we are greedy.

People, people wake up. We are not conserving water. We are redirecting its use. I give up a lawn, so our concerned leaders can approve more developments that use the water I "conserved" and then some. So I sit without a lawn while some developer gets even richer (hey, Mr. Diamond) while causing even more water to be used. Let's use some logic here and stop calling us commoners greedy.

I'm tired of this divide-and-conquer P.R. directed by the powers that be. The rich get richer. The politicians that allow it get richer and more powerful. And I sit on my patch of grass playing with my kids and get called greedy.

Shane Lindstrom

Now, a Kind Word From a Reader

Thank you so much for making the Weekly more reader-friendly! I didn't even realize how much of it I used to skip because it was just too hard to read. The new format is great.

Amy Hart

And Now, a Word From a Reader Who Needs a Life

The Tucson Weekly needs to take its title-writing and editing up a notch. Columns should not have titles like "Of all the recent experiences I've had involving my dying brother, the time we spent in the emergency room was the worst" and "Super-sized non-surprise: A ridiculous experiment yields predictable results" (March 25). The title of Downing's column could have been a paraphrase of her first sentence "Hell in midtown Tucson." The title of Danehy's column could have been "Super-sized pseudoscience."

Both columns would have benefited from editing. Downing's column states that the incident occurred on March 27, but the Weekly came out on March 25. Danehy's column ends with a put-down: "Hey dude: As a documentarian, you're OK; as a guy, you suck." A more sensible last line would have been something like "You're a good filmmaker but a lousy scientist." That would have let Danehy summarize his main point (the experiment was "ridiculous") without sounding like a nasty whiner.

Bottom line: TW needs more pithy titles and less pissy columns.

Deborah Frisch