News & Opinion » Mailbag



Drivel From a Lib: Farley Shouldn't Have Run as a Dem

I want to commend Steve Farley for caring so much about our community to run an ill-fated campaign for City Council. I disagree with Steve on the issues, but when I debated and beat Steve on the light-rail issue two years ago, I could see that he is a genuine and caring man who truly loves this community.

Both Steve and I have campaigned on ballot initiatives, and both Steve and I have campaigned for elective office. The principal difference in our campaign strategies was that I ran as a third-party candidate, whereas Steve thought he could make a difference from within a major party, something we Libertarians learned a long time ago was pointless.

Nothing against Nina Trasoff, but Steve Farley is a good Democrat--an awful libertarian, but a good Democrat. Yet all the major media talked about is who has the better chance of beating Fred Ronstadt. The Weekly staff did its best to bolster the Farley campaign, but even in Ward 6, that apparently made not the slightest difference in the election results.

The only lesson that should be taken away from this particular election is that you cannot run a real "straight-talk" campaign as either a Democrat or a Republican and hope to win a contested primary. Steve Farley had as good a chance of making a difference in this election if he ran as an independent or with a third party. Steve's not much of a Libertarian--but maybe the Green Party is hiring?

David Euchner
past chairman, Pima County Libertarian Party

Reader's Oasis, RIP

It was indeed sad to read Irene Messina's brief notice of the demise of Reader's Oasis, one of the few independent book stores in Tucson ("End of the Chapter," Books, Sept. 15). There is no pleasure like finding a good book you didn't even know you were looking for, and having time for conversation with employees and patrons who are fellow readers. No such experience can be had at chain book stores or Amazon, and I believe our culture is the less for it.

Randall S. Smith

Reader's Oasis, You Never Did Much for Me

Speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool bibliophile, the closing of a bookstore isn't good news to me. But, sorry to say, in all the years of their existence, neither Reader's Oasis nor Green Fire Bookshop offered me a compelling reason to shop in their stores. Hence, I never became a customer.

That being said, I'll confess to being a heavy user of our local public library. In fact, I like to refer to the library as the "try before you buy" store, meaning that if I borrow a book and find it to be useful, chances are better than even that I'll buy it.

Sometimes, I'll buy from a local bookstore. I've found the special order service at the UA bookstore to be both fast and friendly. I'm also fond of mail ordering books directly from their publishers.

Martha Retallick

Yo, Vanderpool: Conference Organization Takes Time, Work

I read the provocative piece by Tim Vanderpool on planning for the Dalai Lama's teaching and was disappointed that the Weekly would run such an editorial as the opening coverage on such an event ("Dalai Lama Inc.," Currents, Sept. 15).

I did not attend the teachings in 1993, but I know from direct experience running four major national conferences in Tucson in the last eight years, that it takes considerably more than 12 months and two people to pull off this size and caliber of conference. If the 1993 event was anything like this weekend's teachings, then all attendees got far more than their money's worth. Vanderpool might have done a better job reality testing the claims being made. This raised doubts for me about the rest of his story.

Kirk Emerson

Another Touching Letter From an Adoring Fan

Tim Vanderpool's "Dalai Lama Inc." (Sept. 5) was pathetic, stupid, clumsy and calculatingly vicious. We are embarrassed for you.

Dr. Philip Boatright

Consulting Firms Suck!

Jim Nintzel's blurb on a new arena for downtown Tucson ("If You Build It ... ," The Range, Sept 22) covers one of what appears to be a growing cottage industry of "consulting firms" recommending similar facilities around the country. They approach the city with a money-making idea, and the only thing guaranteed in the whole deal is the city paying a small fortune to the consulting firm. Yes, we get the arena, but the inflated attendance figures mean the city will lose money for the life of the facility.

These sorts of consulting firms are often scam artists. Beware! We all know, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Many cities haven't learned that lesson yet.

Andy Odell

This Land Is Your Land; This Land Is My Land ...

Catherine O'Sullivan should read and study history instead of inventing it. Her article, "A Call for Arizona to Adopt an Official Language--Spanish, That Is" (Guest Commentary, Sept. 22) is rife with mistakes.

O'Sullivan misstates: "The United States could have purchased those territories. It took them not because it had any right to them, but because it could." The Mexican-American War was fought between 1846 and 1848 in what is now the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, and ended Feb. 2, 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed. This treaty called for Mexico to cede 55 percent of its territory in exchange for $15 million.

More frightening than O'Sullivan's ignorance of this treaty and the war that it ended is her lack of knowledge about the Gadsden Purchase. It established the border between Arizona and Mexico that exists today and made Tucson part of the United States The treaty was negotiated between the United States and Mexico in 1853 and ratified by both countries in 1854. The United States agreed to pay Mexico $10 million for nearly 30,000 square miles south of the Gila River. Ms. O'Sullivan may quibble about the prices paid in these purchases, but the United States did purchase the territories.

Ms. O'Sullivan is entitled to her opinions, but it is unethical of her to misrepresent the facts so that they fit her arguments

Mike Quigley

We Think the Whole Point of This Letter Was to Insult Graf's Coif

Catherine, we got the point with the last article: You don't like insular morons who fail to appreciate multiculturalism, especially those who fail to see the wonderful influence Mexicans have had, and still have, on Southern Arizona. We agreed with you, and we shared your pain. But then you had to go and descend to those morons' level, perhaps in an attempt to get a more universal understanding.

The supposedly "unassailable logic" you put forth in your latest article reminds me of nothing more than Randy Graf's hair: It is indeed an artificial masterpiece, consistent at first glance, but then puzzling and slightly disturbing. The whole your-ancestors-weren't-justified-in-doing-that-so-nyah-nyah argument you currently advance applies to everyone. If we grant that "Americans of European descent are effectively squatting in Mexico," it can't be missed that Mexicans (who primarily speak Spanish, a European language, like English) are also squatters to the "native" populations they killed, displaced or interbred with, and so on.

I urge you, Catherine, to not employ specious or self-undermining arguments when no arguments are needed. Some people are just morons who refuse to get it. Nuff said.

David Buechel

Add a comment