The Anti-Tattoo Conspiracy's Uncovered!To the Editor,
If you did a culture on the Tucson Weekly, you'd get little particles of fecal matter, such as the piece entitled "Ink Blot" (July 24). I cannot fathom what your staff's beef is with tattoo shops and tattooed people. Each time you've featured coverage on the latest lame attempt at revitalization, you've invariably included some fool griping about "tattoo shops and bars" as if we are the scourge of downtown Tucson.
Is it because we are some of the few businesses that have survived and thrived in this area as innumerable hyped-up art studios and trinket shops have fallen flat on their faces? And don't think I've forgotten Tom Danehy's scathing piece on tattooed women--I remember his ignorant and intolerant prose as if it was expelled from his bowels just yesterday. The photo accompanying "Ink Blot" was tasteless as well; a woman's torso with a badly rendered tattoo and the incendiary caption, "Where has that needle been?"
Your source couldn't provide any information as to what equipment she saw or even confirm if it was actually used in the tattooing process. "Surgical looking stuff?" How horrifying! Rather than consult the employees of the tattoo shop, as anyone with common sense would have done, she bolted from the premises, pursued by an imaginary cloud of toilet-mist plague.
The Pima County Health Department and Arizona Department of Health Services are about as knowledgeable about tattooing as Magdalene and are unqualified to regulate it. Government interference opens our trade, steeped heavily in tradition, to nothing but corruption.
The Health Department can provide me with nothing but headaches and hassles. I paid my dues in this industry and simply wish to pursue my career in relative peace and freedom. I take great pride in my work and workplace. I am thoroughly disgusted with your publication and will no longer consult it for information of any kind.
Insults Hurt Tom's Coulter ArgumentTo the Editor,
I am a 22-year-old UA student and found Danehy's column on Ann Coulter ("Coulter Club," July 31) extremely offensive. First, I think it is inexcusable to refer to a woman as "skanky," despite what her opinion may be. You cite liberals, like yourself, as being responsible for women's liberation, but in the same breath, describe a well-educated woman like Coulter with demeaning sexual adjectives. This doesn't make sense.
Second, Coulter did not choose the title of Treason for this book or Slander for her previous book. Her publishers chose it. And, having read and contemplated the ideas in both books, I find it severely hard to believe that you read all of Treason and successfully processed her point in two hours.
While I do not agree with everything Coulter has to say, I believe she has a right to say it. Aren't the liberals the ones who complained the Dixie Chicks had the right of free speech and could criticize Bush on foreign soil? Whether you like it or not, the conservative point of view in this country has the right to be heard.
I suggest you read Coulter's Slander, as it discusses liberal media and how they refer to conservatives. As it turns out, you are in good company referring to conservatives as "stupid" for existing and having the opinions that they do. Your perception and opinion of conservatives is unfortunately not original.
I've been exposed to liberal professors throughout my years at the UA. Without Fox News and conservative books like Coulter's, I would not have my views represented in any part of the media. Not to mention, Coulter's education and persona provides the only female role model in my lifetime that has shown that it is OK for women to be well-educated, beautiful and have an opinion.
Tom Danehy: A Waste of SpaceTo the Editor,
Tom Danehy's "Coulter Club" (July 31) provides an excellent example of the current use in journalistic discourse of what has been described as "McCarthyism." In the course of the column, Danehy makes at least seven unflattering references to authors of what he calls liberal-bashing books, as well as their intelligence, appearance and sanity.
In her book, Ms. Coulter offers many sources and facts to back up her accusations. Danehy offers nothing to refute them other than citing two examples of alleged right-wing savaging.
In your attempt to defend liberalism and the Democratic Party, you offer more evidence for the failure of liberalism than you to do to prove Ms. Coulter wrong.