That Scary Guest Commentary May Just Be Right!Guy McPherson's Guest Commentary (April 27) is one hell of a cheery note. The scary part is it may come to be.
We have known since the Saudis cobbled together an oil boycott of the United States in the early '70s that we must do something about the energy crisis that has suddenly arrived, riding in a Hummer, of course. The more pressing question: Why are we unable to plan for what we know is going to happen? What the hell have we been doing for a third of a century? How is it we have squandered our political energies trying to ban same-sex marriages and attempting to pass an amendment that bans burning the American flag? Why have we wasted precious time on stupid issues that have nothing to do with long-term American economic health and prosperity?
If Americans keep re-electing the same tired, brain-dead politicians, McPherson's predictions will indeed come to pass. It is time for Americans to stop whining and bitching, and trying to blame someone else. We are the problem.
Here is my short-term prediction about Arizona's future: Sen. Jon Kyl and John McCain, who each have the imagination of a frog, will be re-elected; partisan bullshit will continue in Congress; gas prices will climb; Americans will continue to whine, and the beat will go on.
That Scary Guest Commentary Was Mere Fear-Mongering!The current spike in gasoline prices has brought out the same scare-mongering that we've seen for the past 30 years. Your Guest Commentary from the April 27 issue is no exception. Why should we believe the sky is falling this time?
The absurdity of such statements as "demand ... will outstrip supply" is readily apparent. It is always the case that the number of barrels of oil sold exactly equals the number bought at whatever is the prevailing price. It could not be any other way. If there were more demand than supply at this price, then the price would rise incrementally, reducing some demand and increasing some supply until things balance.
I feel no need to fear the market forces reaching a balance. If the price of energy is high, new energy sources will become feasible. For example, each year, solar research is finding ways to make it cheaper. Eventually, solar will be cheaper than oil for electricity. The worst thing we can do is to allow the government to stop market forces from bringing innovation and progress.
Since the 'Weekly' Didn't Print Exactly What I Wanted ...In my discussion with Dave Devine regarding the old Fourth Avenue underpass, my three primary points were lost in his journalistic interpretation ("Endangered Roadway," Currents, May 4).
First, it should be noted that the current two-tunnel approach replaces 70 percent of the historic underpass since the structure does not meet current railroad standards for load bearing. The roof, walls, center support and roadway will all be brand new.
Second, Dave's comparison of current pedestrian traffic to future proposed pedestrian traffic is comparing apples to oranges. The two-tunnel approach had cars, trolleys, bikes and pedestrians, all in the new lighted tunnel. The older historic Fourth Avenue underpass was left to rot next to the new tunnel with no designated traffic through it. The reason I called it the "scary mugger tunnel" is that most of the people Dave interviewed would be using the new tunnel, leaving the older tunnel for a few brave souls.
As downtown Tucson has struggled for years to revitalize itself, the Plaza Centro plan, with a focused entertainment district including the Rialto and Hotel Congress, has already energized the eastern end of Congress Street. This will show itself in the next few years as Congress Street once again becomes the entertainment district it was.
In Defense of 'Darwin's Nightmare'I was shocked at the lousy review that Darwin's Nightmare got from your reviewer (Film Clips, April 20). I saw this movie at the International Film Festival in Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic, last summer, and I found it to be one of the most powerfully affecting films of the entire festival. The review in the Weekly mentions nothing of what the film is about, only what it is purported to be about. I found it to be gripping, however, and I thought the director did an excellent job of letting the people and the place tell the story, while ordering the narrative in such a way that the story is revealed in a truly suspenseful manner.
I did not remember the first five minutes of the film, with the man swatting at a bee. The things I do remember involve revelations about exactly what the somewhat reckless Russian pilots had been bringing to the shores of Lake Victoria, in what, for the first two-thirds of the movie, we are assured are empty planes which have merely flown there for the sole purpose of picking up crates of perch. I also remember the homeless children, who melted down plastic packing material to create a potent inhalant, and the unfortunate fact that the people who lived in the village could not afford to buy the perch. Since catching the fish was so lucrative, not many who could fish it would bring themselves to farm instead, and so there was a lack of food.
The review only mentions the first 15 minutes of the film, the film's reputation, and maligns the director. In light of what I know about how potently the film affected me and others who've seen it, I can't help wondering if the reviewer watched the whole thing.
It would be a shame if the review that was printed in your column were the only account offered of a film which, in the eyes of so many others, is powerfully relevant to the world today.
We Will End on This ... Interesting NoteWell, I wanted to post my opinion about some excerpts of the article "A Movie Home Companion" (May 4).
After reading that article, I, in your place, would hide my head in a paper bag and just shut up. Really, you think it's SOOO clever, but is downright idiotic. I really think I should not be here, wasting my time writing this mail, because it probably won't be published anyway, but I want you to know that your opinions about things are only that, your opinions.
And Keanu Reeves, yes, KEANU REEVES DOES HAVE FANS. A lot of fans. In every place of the world. I'm not even in the United States, but reading what you wrote about him made me think about how some people, who can't make anything more of their lives, just sit and think posing as a clever person can bash an actor and a person so loved around the world like Keanu Reeves is. So, you are one of those critics who suffers with the "folie a deux" effect about Reeves, who knows almost nothing about him or his movies, but even so, and WITHOUT seeing his two new projects or his work in them, is already judging him like you were two so-called authorities on the subject matter.
Keanu has a 20-year career; he would not have it if he wasn't good. He has millions of fans and, really, you should learn to live with the fact that he and his work are loved.
I'm not working for his PR team. I'm a movie fan and think your opinion about him is idiotic and full of preconceptions. And I'm only writing here to make you know that he makes movies and will make them because we are out there to enjoy his work. LIVE WITH THAT!