David Hardy a Typical Mean Old White Man

The article on David Hardy ("Moore or Less," Currents, July 15) glaringly points out the biggest mistake made by Michael Moore: Moore should have titled his book MEAN Stupid White Men.

Don't let Mr. Hardy fool you! He tries to come off in the article as a reasonable, rational guy, but he's really just another typical mean old white man. Just look at his picture--bring this guy the wrong food order, cut him off in traffic or spout some "liberal-commie" opinion, and the veins start bulging on his head. Cross this guy, and he's going to come at you like a rabid badger on crack! Take that, you America-hating, commie traitor, Michael Moore!

You see people like Hardy all the time. Their critical-thinking skills and emotional development ceased somewhere in high school. Their values, all derived from parental and peer pressure to go along with the status quo, are never questioned. Every issue is simple, black and white. And everyone should think exactly like they do, no matter how much denial is required.

So, Mr. Hardy, chill out! And if you can't find anything more worthwhile to do, take all that moral indignation out on Rush, G. Gordon and O'Reilly. I think they've been telling a few biased "falsehoods," too!

Douglas W. Moore

Danehy and Other Critics Are True Americans

I've watched patiently as hypocrites like your Danehy critic ("Danehy Is a Traitor/Liberal," Mailbag, July 15) have accused my fellow Americans (Democrats) of being traitors, cowards, enemies of the state, what have you. Additionally, they have laid claim to being the only "Americans" willing to serve and fight for their country while wacko, liberal, commie-pinko types rail against the military, political and industrial machines that have suborned our Constitution and made the First Amendment utterly useless.

As a Marine veteran of Vietnam, with 21 months service in-country, I am sick and tired of their ridiculous claims to being the ultimate patriots. First of all, most of the men I knew in Vietnam--grunts all who took home the majority of the Purple Hearts, while not the Silver Stars, Legions of Merit and the rest of the "senior" combat medals which seemed to be reserved for the officers who sat in the rear with the beer and the gear "advising"--were Democrats. Yep, we were those damned liberals who wouldn't serve our country.

Mr. Damron, take a look at your conservative Republican Congress. More than 90 percent of those people have never served in the active military. While most were of age to serve in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney, they had more important things to do while the rest of us commie-pinko, liberal types were fulfilling our obligations to OUR country. If you investigate the military records of the Democratic members of Congress, you see an almost 180 degree difference in military service. When clowns like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage demean liberals for not serving their country, why is it they do it from the safety of their luxurious homes in America, when not one of them ever served their country?

I applaud Whoopie Goldberg, Linda Ronstadt, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Tom Danehy and every other American, conservative or liberal, who questions the expanding power of the far right in this country. They are the TRUE AMERICANS!!

R. Whiteman

In Defense of 'Clean Elections'

In response to "Clean Elex Spin Cycle" (The Skinny, July 15), the Tucson Weekly and other foes of campaign-finance reform imply that the funding source used by Clean Elections candidates might somehow be appropriated for other purposes, i.e. health care or education. The fact is that when the Arizona voters approved the Clean Elections law in 1998, they also approved a dedicated funding source: a 10 percent surcharge on all civil and criminal fines. Proposition 106 would essentially divert the voter-approved Clean Elections money into the state's general fund, with no guarantees it would be spent for any worthwhile purpose.

In the meantime, the only remaining funding source for any state candidate would be contributions from the same big-money special interests currently trying to kill Clean Elections. If developers, car dealers and lobbyists really cared, Arizona would have the best education system in the United States.

On top of making it possible for candidates to run for statewide office without being beholden to special interests with deep pockets, the Clean Elections fund generated an additional $5.5 million for the general fund in 2001-2002. All Proposition 106 will do is permanently enshrine the special interests in our Constitution. This is no time to let the developers, lobbyists, car dealers and insurance companies change our Constitution so that it works for them and against us.

Katie Bolger

We encourage Ms. Bolger to re-read the Weekly's Clean Elections coverage, where she will, in fact, discover that the Weekly is certainly NOT a foe of campaign-finance reform.

Developers and Drug Traffickers BOTH Contribute to the Economy

Lee Allen did an excellent job with his story on growth ("Facing the Future," July 22), and he was conscientious in allowing both sides of the development issue to speak. But I'd like to address one issue.

The developers' standard line about how much cash they contribute to the local economy could easily be echoed by, say, drug traffickers. In each case the missing question is what costs are associated with those contributions. In the case of drug traffickers, it's obvious, but if you look objectively at development in Tucson during the last three decades, those costs are obvious as well, if sometimes difficult to total in dollars. Because of unchecked growth, our air quality is lower; our water supply is in doubt; noise, traffic congestion and crime are all way up; open space is disappearing; and, most revealingly, taxes are up. We were told for 30 years that "development pays for itself." If that were true, we'd all be getting rebate checks every year now, instead of paying one of the highest municipal tax rates in the country.

Forget the money for a minute, and ask yourself if Tucson is a better place now than it was 30 years ago. Are we better because we have five malls instead of one? If growth only serves to offer more of the same thing, it's not accomplishing anything a bacterial culture couldn't do. We're not better; we're just bigger.

Jonathan Hanson

Stop the Animal Genocide!

"Facing the Future" raised an important issue, but two of the quotes in the article were deceptive. First, Ed Taczanowsky of the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association falsely states, "Builders don't create the need. That's already here."

But there is no "need." As is common in our culture, Taczanowsky bizarrely conflates wants with needs, transforming our every selfish desire into a "need" that the benign developer fulfills. But we do not need huge, one-family homes on the edge of the wilderness. The amount of unused and underused space in the city center gives the lie to that. If we insist on cramming a half-million people into a region that cannot supply their water and food, we can certainly find less destructive ways of distributing that population.

We humans are increasingly moving into the territory of animals that have lived here for thousands of years. Reversing this bloody road to extinction will require not just an end to the individual murders, but also to the genocide carried out by bulldozers and luxury homes.

Lenny Molina
Chuk'shon Earth First!

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly