What Would Jesus See?To the Editor,
Talk about porn politics ("Seeing on Mount Graham," December 5)! How "large" does the mirror have to be for John Hill and friends to see their own reflections?
Unfortunately, all they would see are their own big phalluses. Don't be fooled by the Vatican's lip service in the name of "science." With Lockheed and Martin footing the bill for research the Mount Graham telescopes are nothing but another big white missionary colonization project--genocide still in motion. Such disrespect is shameful. True science is not about power, greed and a social Darwinian complex. The "scientists" in this project have consistently failed to take into account some of the most glaringly obvious variables in their research: preservation of culture, humanity and the planet. And lest we forget in this month of his birth: Jesus didn't need a telescope to figure out the truth--it came from his heart.
What Would Jesus Say?To the Editor,
James DiGiovanna conveniently jumps on the anti-clerical bandwagon (Film Clips, El Crimen del Padre Amaro, December 5) because he has countless other apostates and fallen-aways on his side. If he were truly a man with cojones he'd also exercise religious bigotry towards some other denominations like, say, Judaism. But that's not the trendy thing to do right now.
In addition, pagans like DiGiovanna join in open season against my Santa Fe because since the Vatican II revolution, the Church for the most part has become spineless in defending itself. But in all fairness to the Mexican hierarchy, I applaud their condemnation of sacrilegious filth like El Crimen del Padre Amaro.
As usual, Mexico lags way behind with cinema as no exception. Christopher Reeve was playing roles as modernist and womanizing priests years go. And whaddya know, look what happened to him. A paralyzing injury in the same part of the anatomy where he desecrated the Roman collar. Hmm.
Or take another useful idiot like John Lennon, who deceived a mindless generation with wrath provoking lyrics as "Imagine no hell ... and no religion too." That leftwing limey met his maker of all days on December 8, Feast of the Immaculate Conception. I guess he got his too. But poor souls like DiGiovanna still can't take the hint that they're playing with hellfire by daring to tread upon the Mystical Body of Christ.
I find it interesting that enemies of the faith like DiGiovanna take pleasure in smearing the Holy Priesthood with heterosexual lust and impurity, but when it concerns current scandals like homosexual priests sodomizing boys, then the gay connection is suddenly, universally and unequivocably hushed up. And you liberals talk about censorship. What hypocrisy.
Shame on Mexico for producing such diabolical tripe. The land blessed by the very presence of La Virgen Morena herself. What that country of my ancestors needs is another Cristero rebellion against the Masonic forces that have cursed Mexico since the days of that pinchi Benito Juarez.
So go ahead and persecute Holy Mother Church, Mr. DiGiovanna. The joke's on you because in the process you'll only be damning your wretched soul and fueling the life of Catholicism through the blood of its martyrs. That is unless of course you head straight for the nearest confessional--before it's too late.
--Gonzalo Martinez Celaya
Jesus!To the Editor,
I am astounded and a bit insulted that James DiGiovanna wrote an entire review of Solaris ("A Walk on the Quiet Side," December 5) and didn't mention either Andrei Tarkovsky, the director of the original Solaris film, or Stanislaw Lem, the author of the book on which both films are based. That is quite an oversight. DiGiovanna would have us believe that Soderbergh dreamed the whole thing up himself! And please, of course every sci-fi movie director must deal with Kubrick's 2001, but if Digiovanna had seen Tarkovsky's Solaris he might have had more insight as to where Soderbergh got that "sense of quiet and space" and the "slowly moving camera." (As if Kubrick invented these things.)
StereotypicalTo the Editor,
As an American of Italian descent, I certainly didn't mind James Reel's use of the phrase "good-hearted guineas," referring to the Italian-American family in his review of Joe Di Pietro's play ("Dinnertime Din," November 28) as long as he recognizes that his supposedly jocular reference is an unfair characterization and to lump those words together is ugly and unreasonable. Must we allow Reel his momentary lapse into common stereotypes so that he can continue writing in his smug and vituperate style surrounded by the well-protected environment The Weekly provides him? Of course, so long as he stays there and doesn't spread his damaging prejudices to other publications. Let's be gracious to a man who still may learn that good writing and the poison pen don't mix.
--Nick del Vecchio
Call Us AbsurdTo the Editor,
Somehow I am baffled with the news that the GOP is in trouble and is thinking of new leadership within the party according to The Skinny (December 5). Let me set the record straight and tell you that you couldn't be more incorrect.
How quickly you forget that under the Bob Fannin/John Munger GOP leadership both the state party and Pima County have produced in the last two years three Republican Tucson City Council members, including a Republican mayor. In the last state election, the GOP retained over 90 percent of all statewide offices. Moreover, the GOP actually gained representation in the House by three seats and the Senate by two seats. More impressively, the Pima County Republican Party turned out more Republicans, 75 percent to the Democrats' 65 percent. As a result, under the Fannin/Munger leadership there are more elected Republicans in Arizona then at anytime in the last 10 years. Unfortunately, neither Bob Fannin nor John Munger had a $2.6 million treasure trove to give like Democratic Chair Jim Pederson, which he spent on Janet Napolitano's campaign.
To call for new GOP leadership is absurd!
--T. Michael Andrews
District 28 Republican Chair