Why Didn't 'Weekly' Point Out Schlessinger's Rhetoric?

I was somewhat surprised to see that Dr. Laura spoke at the Fox Theatre. More surprising is that the Weekly featured her under Media Watch ("Dr. Laura to Make Tucson Appearance," April 12) without a single reference to her gay-hating, feminist-bashing, anti-abortion rhetoric: Homosexuality is "deviant," a "biological disorder" or "biological error." Gays are sexual predators who do not deserve rights and should not be left alone with children: "How many letters have I read on the air from gay men who acknowledge that a huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys?" She suggests gays can and should get themselves "cured" through "reparative therapy" and used the Family Research Council as her main source of information on homosexuality. She claims gay people are not entitled to equal rights such as marriage or adoption "because of their sexually deviant behavior, just like bestiality, pedophilia and sadomasochism."

When I called the Fox to find out why they are supporting this bigoted platform, general manager Skip Rickert said, "Well, we are a community theater!" Now that Don Imus is out of work, perhaps we will see him appearing there soon, along with a host of other flagrant racists, open anti-Semites and gay bashers that the Fox feels will benefit our community.

Gary Patch

If I Could Kiss a Satellite ...

Just thought I'd write to let someone know that I wish to say: "Thank Goodness for XM Radio!" ("And That's The Truth," Media Watch, April 12).

For years, I've been trying to pick up Phoenix stations because of the disgusting lineup of radio programming in this one-horse town! They took away jazz years ago, and local talk shows have gone away to make way for national talk shows that are so one-sided, it makes you sick to listen!

Rich Wheeler

A Modest Proposal for David Ray Regarding Graffiti

The guest commentary by David Ray (April 19) brings new insights to my previous view of graffiti. In the past, when I found my home, car and even my trash containers vandalized by gang tags, I felt violated, as if my property had been burglarized and that some unknown, cowardly, faceless gang member was claiming something of mine. But now I see another view: When I find such graffiti, I should consider it a gift, something of value offered to me by a talented artist. Instead of viewing a graffiti-filled neighborhood as an area to avoid, it should be considered in a manner similar to an art gallery, and be visited, enjoyed and treasured.

I suggest that David spray-paint his own house, his car and his trash containers with scrawls that resemble Arabic or Chinese calligraphy, and watch his neighborhood grow. And a year from now, let's have another guest commentary from David Ray. I look forward to it.

Bob Gonzalez

Actually, the Purpose of Printing It WAS to Specifically Get a Rise Out of Mr. Zwibel

If the purpose of printing David Ray's asinine opinion article on graffiti was to get a rise out of my neighbors and myself, you have succeeded.

My neighbors and I have been tagged by these "artists" one too many times. Is Ray serious that he doesn't understand the anger and frustration we feel when our homes and businesses are tagged? We're not just talking trash bins. It's front steps, mailboxes, block walls and business facades; now they're using etching chemicals to scrawl on business windows. I don't care if a kid paints a perfect copy of a Rembrandt on my property; it's still vandalism! It's a godsend that we have such a thing as the graffiti-abatement program.

Tell ya what, David: Why don't you come to our neighborhood and listen to one of your "graffiti kids crying out for help" as my neighbors and I stuff a paint can up his ass sideways!

Rick Zwibel

There Goes the (Arts) Neighborhood?

David Aguirre's critique of the Museum of Contemporary Art leadership signified the beginning of the final rupture of the old Warehouse District culture, and it is time to cut through the crap ("The Arts Community Feces-Throwing Continues!" Mailbag, April 19, and "Time for New Leadership at MOCA," Mailbag, March 29).

One way to view the district's creative and political potential is to assess the progress and stability of its three major players: Ned Schaper in his Bevel Institute, Steven Eye at Solar Culture and David Aguirre at Steinfeld and their relationships with each other, MOCA and the City Council. All are longtime stakeholders; all are city tenants with large amounts of square footage; all have spent many years developing their art and venues; all have the most to lose. What these sage artists have taught me is that in order to remain in and eventually own their warehouses--as they should--they have had to cultivate very specialized and idiosyncratic relationships.

It appears to be a tough and lonely position, but they believe in survival of the fittest, and fortunately for them, so do MOCA and the City Council.

Robert Steigert

Oppose the STRIVE Act, Because Amnesty Doesn't Work

The recent observation by Jim Nintzel ("March Madness," The Skinny, April 19) that moderates and not "extremists" should resolve the debate over illegal immigration got me thinking about the biblical story of King Solomon. Had Jim Nintzel and Jeff Flake lived in the days of Solomon, they would have happily used the sword and sent each mother on her way with her fair share of the baby, and patted themselves on the back happy with their moderate compromise.

Illegal immigration cannot be solved with compromise. Amnesty has been tried before and does not work. Just this week, the Mexican Ambassador to America, Arturo Sarukhan, was quoted in a Miami paper saying that American immigration reform will not end illegal immigration from his country. He believes investment in Mexico's infrastructure and targeted job creation is required to resolve the issue. The solution to the American problem of enabling illegal immigration lies with strict enforcement of our own laws.

Mike Taylor

Oppose the STRIVE Act, Because It Goes Too Far

The Skinny derides the leadership of Derechos Humanos for their opposition to the proposed federal legislation known as the STRIVE Act. I applaud Derechos Humanos for standing on principle over politics.

Consider that STRIVE proposes an extensive expansion of the Border Patrol, including border walls, unmanned aerial surveillance drones, computerized tracking systems and the construction of 20 new immigrant prisons. STRIVE continues to criminalize immigrants by exposing millions of undocumented persons to mandatory incarceration and deportation, and expands the use of "expedited deportation" in which persons are subjected to removal without simple due process protections.

While STRIVE does increase the number of temporary worker visas, these visa holders are neither afforded adequate access to legal permanent residency nor basic labor protections, resulting in the maintenance of a class of people without equal protection of the law. Additionally, many migrants would not be eligible for STRIVE=s limited visa program, and so will continue risking their lives by attempting to cross the border.

Weekly readers should consider supporting Derechos Humanos and rally in support of civil liberties and against border militarization.

Jim Fullin

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment