Keep on Fighting, Progressives!

Your last paragraph in the Nov. 11 issue says it all: "We must be more vigorous than ever before" ("Onward and Upward," Editor's Note, Nov. 11). There must be a stronger and more effective voice against Bush-Rove starting now.

There must be a rejection of any explanation of the Bush "victory" apart from a triumph of deceptive marketing and manipulation of ignorance. Best wishes in the years ahead for progressive causes!

Murray Bolesta

The Election? Clinton Gets Some of the Blame

A week after such a hotly contested presidential race, and after reading Editor's Note in the Nov. 11 edition of Tucson Weekly, I am left, like many, scratching my head in confusion--but not for the same reasons as most of those I have heard on radio, TV or even in the Weekly. As a registered independent, I tend to vote on conscience and look at things from the middle; the view is great. As such, I am utterly amazed every time I hear a political pundit question how Kerry could have lost based on what most agree were issues of morality, integrity, etc. Regardless of mudslinging, the fact remains that Kerry has a distinguished record as a U.S. senator and served bravely and honorably in Vietnam, right? Kerry is a practicing Catholic who is on the record as saying that prayer is a part of his daily routine, right? So what if he may be a little left-leaning; how could it be that any reasonable, objective person could make such a strong distinction based solely on morality and character when there is so much at stake? How could this happen?

Two words: Bill Clinton.

Apparently, no one remembers the constant scandal (Whitewater, unethical use of a cigar, hummer in the Oval Office, impeachment hearings, questionable pardons, furniture and china missing from the White House, etc.) spanning the Clinton presidency. If Rove and company mobilized their base in 2004 around the moral concerns of Middle America, Clinton helped them to solidify it from 1992-2000. No matter which side you are on, I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue against the assertion that the Oval Office was publicly desecrated during the Clinton presidency (even if it was all Linda Tripp and Ken Starr's fault). To say that this had no impact on the collective consciousness of the moderate voter with strong moral convictions seems impossible to me. On issues of morality, Kerry was not only up against the Bush campaign, but also the eight years of sensationalized scandal of the last Democratic administration.

Chris Hale

Some Suggestions on Political, Cinema Coverage

A positive and upbeat post-election editorial: Thank you!

I like the idea of keeping watch over our elected officials. For many of us for whom the Weekly is our main source of local matters, I would like to suggest a regular, boxed information section indicating how our state Legislature and Congress voted on current bills or/and important bills pending--plus handy e-mail addresses to facilitate reaching them. It would be a great regular addition to the Weekly--the Legislature at a glance, so to speak.

I would also like to see independent documentary films briefly reviewed, unbiased, separately from the regular film clips. There are so many these days, and, eventually, Casa Video has them. (The reviewer doesn't have to like them.)

Thank you, Jimmy Boegle, for all your efforts and time to constantly improve and bring us our irreverent Weekly on time every week.

Sarah Kahn

Goldwater Fellow, Legal Genius, Responds

I was tweaked in your pages for criticizing the results-oriented Arizona Supreme Court for throwing off the ballot an initiative that would have prohibited spending taxpayer money on political campaigns ("Think Tanked," The Skinny, Nov. 4). The court, absurdly, held that the proposed constitutional amendment would have violated the constitutional single-subject rule. I noted that if an initiative repealing the so-called Clean Elections Act violated the single-subject rule, then the original initiative creating it must have as well.

Your publication in turn suggested that the difference is that the new initiative is a constitutional amendment, which is subject to the single-subject rule; whereas the original initiative was a statute. Guess what? There's a separate single-subject rule that applies to statutes. My point remains entirely valid: Citizens should either have been allowed to vote for both or neither. Personally, I would err on the side of allowing voters to choose.

But thanks for referring to me as a "legal genius." I'll quote you on that.

Clint Bolick

D-M Was There Before You, You Whiners

Every time I read an article pissing and moaning about Davis-Monthan Air Force Base's noise and danger, I get more pissed off ("Fight Over Over-Flights," Currents, Nov. 18). Look, if you don't like the neighborhood, don't buy or rent there. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. And if you have lived there when they still had aircraft that were quieter, you must realize that at one time, the air base was there when there were no houses nearby. They were there first.

When I moved to Tucson in 1967, the real estate agent showed me a house south of 29th Street between Craycroft and Swan roads. I told her that she must have been kidding. Perhaps she wanted to be nice so that I could be close to my job. I used to live on the eastside of town, and at times, there was some noise, but you have to put up with that. The air base does its very best to limit the noise and danger to the city by taking off in the morning to the southeast over the desert and recovering the aircraft later in the day by landing from the southeast. This avoids most of the flying over the city. Of course, at times, the direction of strong winds makes that impossible.

If you own or rent property in the proximity to the air base and you want to blame somebody else than yourselves, blame the planning and zoning people who ran that department in the late '40s and '50s for permitting homes to be built there in the first place. Like the saying goes: If you don't like it there, go back to where you came from.

Alex L. Lutgendorf

First the Easter Bunny, and Now This

Ho ho ho! Look who's reading the Tucson Weekly at Park Place! The kindest Santa in town.

Saretta Wool


In "Pulitzer's Price" (Media Watch, Nov. 25), some facts regarding Gannett's acquisition of Phoenix newspapers were incorrect. Gannett didn't acquire Central Newspapers, which then owned the Arizona Republic and the Phoenix Gazette, until August 2000. The Gazette had already closed by that time.

In "The Raoul Bozo Story" (Nov. 25), due to incorrect information from a source, we incorrectly identified the tribal affiliation of Bozo's wife, Titania Mailboy. She is Navajo. We apologize for the errors.

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly