July 6 - July 12, 1995


New Line Of Work

To the Editor,
I read with interest Greg Yocum's story of his career as a businessman drug smuggler ("Smuggler's Blues," Tucson Weekly, June 15). Although it is a compelling story, I will not be buying his book and helping to retire his debt to the Internal Revenue Service.

Instead, I will make a contribution to the Fraternal Order of Police to help retire the debt that I owe the officers of Tucson and the officers of the DEA. They also spend their days among untrustworthy, amoral and dangerous men. Unlike Yocum, they do not get a large bundle of cash at the end of each assignment. They do get shot at and occasionally the bullets reach their target.

Yocum should not be discouraged. There are still opportunities for a businessman smuggler disillusioned with the drug trade. Someone with his powers of rationalization could be very successful in the business of smuggling illegal aliens. Although, by comparison, it would not offer an adrenaline-pumping environment. He could even become a lawyer.
--Kathy Cooney

Sexist Pabulum To the Editor,
Regarding "Eastwood's Bridgework" (Tucson Weekly, June 8): From what care did your writer Zachary Woodruff just recently emerge?

As an allegedly progressive paper, I would hope the editorial review process to be more stringent and not allow such antiquated thinking and sexist pabulum to be passed off as journalistic license. To print "There's nothing wrong with fantasy, but this is housewife fantasy," is irresponsible, sexist and sadly flawed critical logic.

There are many words and avenues to take in dismissing a work, and a paper such as yours shouldn't use terms that have no equivalent male counterpart in a pejorative manner. To use the term "housewife" as a negative lightweight profession is on the same level as focusing the text of the review on the woman's position while having the affair and ignoring the man's role, his own ethical dilemma and lack of commitment.

The review calls Eastwood "the wandering hero who rides along, sets things straight, and leaves...," while describing Streep as "a world-class, turned-on fidgeter."

Why don't you just say you approve of Eastwood's tacky fuck-'em-and leave-'em attitude and call Streep a slut and have that much more ad space available to sell?
--Aldo Locascio

No Respect

To the Editor,
I'm writing to both compliment and criticize. I found the recent Skinny column, for some strange reason, to be balanced, informative, upbeat and written to a general audience (Tucson Weekly, June 22). Its section on County Attorney Steve Neely was just brimming with respect, and generally I find your paper to have very little respect for anybody. This could just be my own hang-up or it could be that your writers tend to be a jaded lot (at this point I'm sure that's true of movie reviewer Zachary Woodruff, who I've stopped reading).

But getting back to The Skinny, I find in general that it is written towards an audience of insiders and, since I'm not, all that scathing tongue lashing gets wasted. I need more background info. What I would like to see, instead of gossip and so-called entertainment, is news; I want the facts, and I want them presented in such a way so that your average, run-of-the-mill, working adult can get it. Last week's Skinny pieces on Steve Neely and John Kromko accomplished that, and I want to see more of it. There are few reliable ways to get information about the local status quo. It is my hope that The Weekly and The Skinny in particular can be a viable forum to do that. I know that your paper tries to be informative, unbiased and accessible. However, I think your success rate is weak. We are not all insiders here. Please try harder.
--William Klein

Wage Rage

To the Editor,
So The Skinny thinks that Steve Neely is just a peachy great guy and John Kromko is a great wit who is forever "tilting at windmills" (Tucson Weekly, June 22).

And you claim this is an "alternative paper" to the Star and Citizen?

Save for a mention by Tom Beal back in April, the local media has completely ignored the city initiative for a $7 minimum wage. It has already passed the 11,000 signatures needed to make it on the ballot and is now gathering more as a cushion against a challenge by the right wing.

Why not show that The Weekly is different, and cover an issue that thousands of Tucsonans support. It may not be as exciting as Marana politics, but it's important to many of your readers trying to scrape by on Tucson wages.
--Joe Bernick

School Blues

To the Editor,
You've done it! I read plenty of stuff reported in your rag that infuriates me (the stuff--I love The Weekly), but I've been pushed to the point where I have to write what I feel about the UA ("Unkind Cuts," Tucson Weekly, June 8). I'm an alum and former employee and daughter of a retired faculty member and a current employee (who is also a former faculty member). They'd probably shoot me for writing this.

I'm sick of the UA administration and the self-serving crap they continually spew forth and their actions which seem to benefit only them. I could tell them in one sentence how to save some major bucks: get rid of a half-dozen worthless, overpaid positions, like vice president (or assistant or associate), dean (or assistant or associate), etc. Take your pick; there's a seemingly unlimited supply. Get ahold of a Faculty/Staff Directory sometime; it's astounding.

And furthermore: They don't want to "re-deploy" professors, since the object is to save those salaries and benefits? What about what they did when Henry Koffler stepped down from the presidency? Everyone around the UA knows they certainly scrambled to find salary money and precious office space for him...what's he doing that's so crucial to the UA's mission?

I notice the department Paul Sypherd is tenured in wasn't on the cut list. Want to bet it won't be as long as he's there?

How about this one: It's well-known that the administration would like to completely eradicate undergraduate programs from the campus (I first read about it in The Weekly). Theoretically, the plan for the new campus is to move them there. So why is the UA building a brand-new residence hall at Fifth Street and Highland, probably with some of that taxpayer-assessed bond money? Are grad students going to live there? Right. Why, when they have beautiful Christopher City to live in? And while I'm at it, why doesn't the administration pur some of that money to really good use and clean that place up? It's a health hazard and an eyesore, and should be condemned.

These people are disgusting, and the Board of Regents is even more so for supporting them. When are they going to realize that if they keep this up, there won't be any university left? They may not think they need the students or staff or faculty, but those three groups may let them know otherwise, in ways they've
--Lisa Cole

Contents  Page Back  Last Week  Current Week  Next Week  Page Forward  QuickMap

July 6 - July 12, 1995

Weekly Wire    © 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth