All Fired UpTo the Editor,
It was very satisfying to read Susan Zakin's column in the March 1 Weekly, about the Phoenix ecosaboteurs who burned down trophy homes ("Yuppie Revolt"). Although I don't always condone illegal actions on behalf of the environment, I also recognize that legal remedies often do not work. Most elected officials are little more than handmaidens to developers and cannot be counted on to act on behalf of the environment.
Sometimes only extreme measures are appropriate or effective. When the law ceases to function on behalf of the general public then individually we should no longer feel obliged to abide by the law. In the case of our environment, it is clearly in the public's best interest to have environmental protections, and to preserve open spaces, whereas those in power invariably side with the Growth Lobby, which represents only their own greedy interests. Land developers have absolutely no regard for the citizens of Tucson, or for our land. They will slavishly prostrate themselves before one thing, and one thing only--money. They seek nothing more than to enrich themselves. Once they have ruined Tucson with their substandard stick and stucco developments they will move on, like locusts, to destroy another place.
Ideally, it's a nice idea to work within the system to effect change, but if this works at all it usually takes years. In the meantime, more and more of our beautiful desert habitat is degraded and plowed under. Those of us who really care about the environment simply cannot afford to wait for that glorious day when a true green party comes to power. We must fight for the land in whatever way we deem appropriate to the situation. Remember that in all the world, this Sonoran desert is unique, and once lost, it is forever lost.
Taking the law into our own hands will increasingly become the only option with any hope of success. Perhaps something like a nationwide "green mafia" will be formed, a group with real power and courage.
This kind of thinking would perhaps be regarded by many as criminal or treacherous, yet at the same time, in a general sense, it's the philosophical basis upon which this nation was founded, and which was regarded highly when this nation was once free. Perhaps one day soon the idea will again prevail that to be a true patriot will entail being truly lawless, and that those who fight the good fight against the established order are genuinely blessed.
Star DumbTo the Editor,
Thanks for Tom Danehy's column about the "stars" spitting out babies out of wedlock while being totally unthinking about the effect on the children ("And Baby Makes Two," March 1). Why has single parenthood become so accepted and popular in our culture? From my perspective, it's challenging enough to raise a child with two parents. In some situations single parenthood is the only choice (i.e. death of a parent), but to have children out of wedlock intentionally and depriving children of a father is selfish and cruel.
Selfish ReflectionTo the Editor,
While I usually avoid Tom Danehy's columns like the plague, I got caught reading his misogynist diarrhea of the keyboard, "And Baby Makes Two." Maybe Danehy should take a step away from his religious-inspired hatred of women before he writes his columns. Nowhere in his diatribe against single mothers--"only most of whom are selfish" and "pathetic loser[s] who could only keep a man interested in ... 10-minute spurts," according to your moralist--does he recognize that every child has two parents, but only one usually bothers to hang around, and that one is the "selfish" woman. Maybe the other half of the equation needs to grow up and show interest in his child, not just his "10-minute spurts."
While Danehy may have started his diatribe against Hollywood types who use artificial insemination to get pregnant--which is no one's business but theirs, I might add--it became crystal clear that the real motivation was a deep-seated hatred of women.
Danehy, take your Catholic misogyny back to Salpointe and give the rest of us a break.