News & Opinion » Mailbag



An Artist Takes Umbrage With One of the Southwest's Top Arts Writers

To Margaret Regan: Welcome to Tucson. I am not sure how long you have lived here, but it is apparent that you have little or no knowledge of multicultural/Latino art--you have a very Eurocentric perspective which is boring and pretentious, and especially unfair to the rest of the community in this Southwestern part of the country ("Dislocation and Separation," Visual Arts, Dec. 13, 2007).

I am willing to educate you on the history of Latino/Chicana/o art, the purpose and the styles. Maybe then you won't sound so uneducated and biased.

My friends in your article who utilize sculptural art were represented well and deserved it--they are good-hearted and talented artists. Your comments about my paintings were quite entertaining and hilarious--you obviously have no knowledge of Latina/Chicana art. And your research as a reporting writer was obviously limited; I don't even know who you are. A phone call would have been appropriate.

After reading your article, my colleagues and I have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe it is just ignorance or simply bias. You have your own definition of what art should look like, and that is your right.

Nevertheless, I would like to meet with you and get to know you; first impressions are lasting impressions, and I believe that it is better to get to know someone.

I was honored to be "invited" to be a part of this show; it is unfortunate that you made so many assumptions based on a few paintings.

Do you believe that Mexican immigrant women should not be angry, should be quiet and helpless, and are only meant to be somber, beautiful, grieving and quiet? Obviously you are not a Mexican/Chicana woman, and it is silly of you to believe you have the knowledge or right to judge our art.

Tanya Alvarez

We Liberals Who Hated Guns Have Been Wrong!

What fools we've all been! All these years, we've listened to the lily-livered, effete, subversive, hate-America liberals who, under the guise of protecting us, have done everything they could to erode our freedoms and safety. Fortunately, Jonathan Hoffman has set us right (Guest Commentary, Dec. 27, 2007).

Let's imagine two scenarios operating from different paradigms:

1. A boy goes into his ninth-grade math classroom, sets his backpack down, then draws out an Uzi and commences to sweep the room with deadly fire. We all hear how dozens of innocent children were killed and injured.

2. A boy goes into his ninth-grade math classroom, sets his backpack down, then draws out an Uzi. A girl shouts, "Hit the deck! Possible incoming!" The students all dive under their desks and draw their weapons. The boy tries to fire, but the girl's first round catches him in the left shoulder. The boy runs out the door, turns and fires a burst back through the door, but is met with a hail of lead. The boy runs out the side door. Meanwhile, students in the class have text-messaged their friends on the playground. As the boy runs out the door, he senses the presence of kids hiding behind the playground equipment. Several students run out the door with weapons at the ready. He swivels to fire, but takes a round in the leg. He limps toward the corner of the building, but when he rounds it, the sleet of battle hits him like a truck. Bleeding badly, he heads toward the trees, but as he reaches them, the principal pushes a button in his office, detonating the mines attached to the tree trunks. Total statistics: Three dead, five wounded.

The message is obvious. Why couldn't we see it before? Because of the media smoke screen put up by the liberals, that's why. Tontos. Pendejos.

Fortunately, it's not too late: Flood the country with guns. Mount a holster on every tree and parking meter. Let no citizen be more than 20 feet from a gun. Then the only gun deaths will be people who wanted to commit suicide anyway.

Carl Noggle

Expand the Concealed-Carry Program!

Jonathan Hoffman brings up a strong point: "Gun-free zones" are prime territory for deranged/angry shooters to kill or injure many. The concealed-carry classes are a bit weak, and added emphasis should be placed on safety and proficiency as well as bullet travel and lethality.

I carry a concealed weapon a great deal. I hope I'm never faced with a situation where I have to use the weapon, because that means I will be aiming to save my life or that of another person.

Make the permit valid just about anywhere. There are more than 80,000 people with concealed-carry permits in Arizona--1.3 percent of the population. All are older than 21 and have been fingerprinted. Weapons in the hands of concealed-carry permit holders are unlikely to be used without a justified defensive reason.

Dennis Nendza

O'Sullivan's Columns Regarding Bipolar Disorder Are Belittling

This (O'Sullivan, Dec. 27, 2006) is the second article Catherine O'Sullivan has written, in little more than a year (Guest Commentary, Aug. 31, 2006), regarding bipolar disorder. Her opinions on the illness are quite dismissive.

Not all persons with bipolar disorder are constantly depressed or "seriously deranged." I know a number of folks who live just fine with bipolar disorder. It's not just a "nasty disease." For someone who may have just been diagnosed, however, this article is enough to make them want to end things right away.

One of the pluses of current medical advances is that we, as a society, are better able to deal with our problems. Why ignore something (a pill, a diagnosis) that can help us feel better and live better? Sure, there are those who will abuse anything (a pill, a diagnosis), but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to harangue those who are living with the true symptoms and effects of the mental illness.

This article is belittling and unnecessary. I suggest reading Kay Redfield Jamison, who writes eloquently and knowledgeably about the illness.

Molly McClintock

Kids Had Cell Phones in 1983?!

I've got to hand it to Tom Danehy. He managed to hit two new lows in the same column (Dec. 27, 2007).

First, he complained about movie theaters--you know, the "crappy food" and high prices and kids who talk on their cell phones. That one was tired in 1983, Tom.

Then, recalling the case of the young "knucklehead" who got busted for drugs, which led to his undocumented family getting swept up by Border Patrol, Danehy complained about the students who marched in protest--in particular, one "little bitch" (as he charmingly puts it) who held up a sign reading,"They can't deport us all." For this, Danehy thinks we ought to deport him. Last I checked, it wasn't illegal to hold that opinion.

According to a Nov. 7 story in the Tucson Citizen, Tucson Police praised the students for their good conduct at the protest, calling it a "lesson in civics." The school superintendent also had nothing but praise for the students. Not good enough for Danehy; he thinks it's awful that the students weren't instead protesting "the fact that this idiot put his entire family in jeopardy by taking drugs to school." Good idea, Tom. Maybe after that, they can protest those damned movie theaters.

Justyn Dillingham


Due to a misunderstanding, "Review and Recap" (Currents, Dec. 27, 2007) reported that Linda Bugbee and William Plocar received an eviction notice. They actually got a letter from a lawyer stating the mobile home they live in would no longer be rented to them after the end of January. We apologize for the error.

Add a comment