Article Was Cruel, Perpetuated Porn

To the Editor,

I find your "Swing Shift" article (May 22) unnecessary and disrespectful, to say the least. This woman's sexual desires and activities are private. I realize she posed in a publication and therefore made her sexual life open to public scrutiny. But the words in Over 50 magazine are not her own, yet you included them to get mileage and reader reaction. You should have just stayed with the facts. I find your article cruel. Lots of young people read your publication, and you are continuing the availability of this verbiage being read again.

--Donna DiFiore

We Want Insight, Not Porn Reprints

To the Editor,

While perusing The Weekly the other day, I made the mistake of glancing at the article concerning Nonie Reynolds' spread in Over 50 magazine. I had thought to gain some insight into this woman's trials and how she was coping with the backlash of having something she thought would go unnoticed brought into the limelight. Instead, I found a horrifyingly sophomoric recitation of the fabricated interview from the Over 50 publication.

Is Chris Limberis so lacking in talent that he has to stoop to such juvenile stunts as this? I don't expect The Weekly to be squeaky-clean, but if I had wanted to read the pornographic entries of another magazine, I would have purchased a copy. I am disgusted that this article was printed rather than something that might have actually been worth reading.

--Kathryn Balley

In "Swing Shift," The Weekly indeed reported that "the magazine says the interviews are all made up." It should also be noted that The Weekly attempted to interview Ms. Reynolds in order to gain insight, but she declined, as was reported in the article. --Ed.

TUSD Staffers Have Sex?!?

To the Editor,

I'm curious. Chris Limberis' article on Nonie Reynolds, the Tucson Unified School District drop-out prevention specialist who resigned after photos of her appeared in a adult magazine, neglected to mention how such an obscure publication--containing said photos--came to light.

On the one hand, it could have been discovered by another TUSD staff member, which, at the very least, involves a trip to the local adult bookstore or a quick cruise around some very specific porn Web sites.

Then again, it could have been a student, most likely under 18, at said video store or Web site, clearly on a desperate, single-minded search for porn that features women about grandma's age. It evokes that troubling, cliched question: Who is monitoring the children?

In any case, the secret is out. It would appear that teachers, administrators and TUSD staff members are having sex, possibly at an alarming rate. They might be talking dirty to their partners or enjoying positions beyond the missionary. And, apparently, some of them are even viewing porn magazines that you don't find on the back shelf of your average 7-Eleven. Maybe most shocking, this sex thing doesn't seem to dry up and wither away as retirement approaches.

With that said, I was really just curious who bought the magazine, read it and then got offended.

--Kristin Gould

More Mountain Mysteries Stories!

To the Editor,

I just read the article written by Ron Quinn, "Mysteries in the Mountains" (May 15)! I was glued to the stories this man had to tell! As a native Arizonan, I have always been fascinated about stories relating our state's history and sacred desert. I hope to see many more stories written by Mr. Quinn in the future! Please keep them coming!

--J.G. Lang

No More Mountain Mysteries Stories!

To the Editor,

Please do not run more--just the same amount--of those articles like Ron Quinn's "Mysteries in the Mountains." You have just the right balance now. I did enjoy it, though I wouldn't want the paper to lose focus.

--Mark Noethen

In Defense of the Service at Chaffin's

To the Editor,

As a regular customer at Chaffin's Family Restaurant, I would like to comment on and add to Jimmy Boegle's review ("Long Live the Greasy Spoon," May 22). Mr. Boegle's single biggest complaint was the service. Not that his comments weren't justified, it's just that at least 99 times out of 100, the service is excellent.

I've eaten there more than 300 times, so my statistics are probably reliable. Several of the servers at Chaffin's have been there a long time. This in itself should say something for the atmosphere; one feels at home at Chaffin's. The servers are friendly and efficient, but two have recently moved onward and upward with their careers (both are college grads). Consequently, there was a recent turnover of personnel, and Mr. Boegle and company were probably served by a temporary employee.

Chaffin's isn't pretty, and the booths, chairs and tables may be the original Sambo's furniture. Mr. Chaffin and family have added original Sambo's paraphernalia to liven the place up.

--Eric L. Carmichel

Where Does "Supper" Fit in to All of This?

To the Editor,

In reviewing the Chaffin's Family Restaurant, it seems that Jimmy Boegle was perplexed at a "dinner" menu for said restaurant, when the place is not open at night.

Jimmy is obviously a Yankee or someone from California! Southerners and Westerners traditionally have often not used the term "lunch," but rather "dinner."

How everything got switched around is anybody's guess, but we all know that Yankees became the de facto owners of American English. And some of us, including Chaffin's Family Restaurant, have not caved in accordingly. (But it's OK, Jimmy; I am a half-ignorant Yankee myself. I use the term "lunch" all the time, but I know better!)

--Steve Vetter

Middle-Class White Kids Can Start the Revolution

To the Editor,

Connie Tuttle's "The Empire Strikes" (May 22) struck home. I couldn't agree more.

The United States has taken a dangerous path these past few years, and no doubt, those on the extreme right who so enjoy trotting out that tired old "fall of Rome" myth regarding the perceived debauchery of today would do well to also consider the corrupt, arrogant and incestuous leadership presently infesting our government. Indeed, there is a comparative analogy.

I do have one problem with this article though, and that's Ms. Tuttle's reference to "misguided, middle-class white kids naively (thinking) they could effect a genuine social revolution." How cynical! I'm old enough to remember the optimism of those days when "peace and love" was more than a flippant expression. And who do you think fostered environmentalism? Who questioned authority? Who brought about the demise of a corrupt presidency and war? I do believe it was those very same middle class, naive kids. Those kids didn't just think they could effect change; they did effect change.

Ms. Tuttle speaks of "a massive shift in the consciousness of the nation's population" as the only salvation for the United States. How does she think that movement would start? Undoubtedly on the college campuses by those very same naive youth.

--Kurt Niece

The Sky Isn't Falling; We Aren't Arrogant

To the Editor,

I was astounded at the intellectual bankruptcy of Connie Tuttle's column, "The Empire Strikes." I could not discern an actual argument, founded in facts and built up with logic and reason, to bolster her point. I am suddenly reminded of the very instructive tale of Chicken Little. How silly she was to think that the sky was falling!

What few facts Connie did interject were flat out wrong and lacked any context whatever. She stated, "We spend more on what we deem 'defense' than all the other nations combined," a falsehood upon which she based her entire column. I also got the distinct impression that ANY amount of military expenditure would be too much for Connie since, in her mind, a dollar more for a gun necessarily means a dollar less for her "genuine human needs."

Isn't security a "genuine human need?"

The generally accepted figure is that the United States contributes 40 percent to the world's military spending. Without context, this would still seem a huge proportion considering we are but one country among hundreds. Gross Domestic Product provides that context. Our military budget comprises roughly 4 percent of our GDP. As a comparison, European nations typically allocate between 1-3 percent of their GDP to military spending, which is relatively low due to the political stability of the region and European reliance on the United States to provide security. In contrast, Middle Eastern nations spend anywhere from 7.1-13 percent of their GDP on defense. Incidentally, no one beats the 25 percent that North Korea spends.

--Michael Robbins

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly