Danehy's Hatred Is Too MuchThere was a time--a long time ago--when I looked forward to the lighthearted, whimsical and often humorous writings of Tom Danehy. No longer. He has become so obsessed with his hatred for President Bush that he can no longer write an article without making a negative reference to him.
He honestly believes that he can mix political opinion with diverse subjects that he happens to be writing about. Sadly, he is no Dave Barry.
Tom Owes Home-Schooled Athlete an ApologyDanehy's column about home schooling (June 3) comes across as the flippant ramblings of a bitter "track dad," angry about his child's defeat. To pacify his hurt ego, he entertains the notion that home-schooled children have no right to participate in high school sports. He follows up with some ignorant generalizations about these children and their families.
He is fortunate that his athletic (popular) children do well in public school. The rest of us fear the verbal, emotional and physical violence that our children endure daily from both students and staff.
I was a public school kid. Home-schooled children who later joined us during high school on average excelled in almost all areas: responsibility, discipline, courtesy, morals, social interaction and, yes, GPA.
How can Danehy imply that public school teaches good citizenship, integrity and fair play--yet call the school district lazy, disinterested and unprincipled? Like too many other public school graduates, he must not know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy." He also must not know the meaning of the words "evil" and "doom." Their inclusion in an article about high school sports is ridiculous. Calling that boy a cheater is immature and inappropriate. As a grown man he should know better; as a parent he should REALLY know better.
He's no red herring, just a sore loser who has momentarily lost touch with reality. I would say Tom owes that boy an apology, but it would not be honored.
Tom Danehy Is a Bad Catholic Because He Supports DemocratsIf a Catholic does not adhere to church teachings, he should not be able receive communion.
In one of his articles, Tom Danehy calls himself a practicing Catholic, but on what grounds does he base his claim? Of course, he sees nothing wrong with receiving our Lord in communion while cheerfully spouting all the appropriate catch phrases of the Democratic Party. But the educated mind recognizes this as a red herring, since the church has always and will always teach the truth about life issues.
While 4,000 babies are killed each day, Mr. Danehy wistfully writes about the dress codes in high schools, the platitudes of "the great" Jimmy Kimmel or the plight of tortillas. Until he decides to stop picking on home schoolers as the Great Satan and gets back to confession to seek God's mercy, he should stick to the Chow or Book departments of your publication. One can hope that he will NEVER use "all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing" to lecture on such a inane topic again.
Mr. Danehy does nothing to build up the church here in Tucson or actively participate in any pro-life/pro-family events in his parish or community. Until his improperly formed conscience can muster a rational Catholic perspective on the most basic of our laws, the natural law and when life begins, he should respectfully abstain from holy communion, since he is surely neither holy nor in communion.
I have forwarded a copy of this letter and some of Mr. Danehy's most heretical work to his local pastor and bishop. May God have mercy on his soul!
Knights of Columbus, State Pro-Life Chairman
The Skinny Should Get Back in the Anonymous ClosetI think that your decision to deprive The Skinny of its anonymity is a mistake. The column's charm and interest depend on its "talk of the town" quality, gossipy but also informative and evaluative. Reading it, one feels part of a community, enjoys the pleasure of being invited to participate in its gossip and to overhear those anonymous voices that pass the word along. But the channels of gossip, with all their charm, remain open only as long as their sources are hidden. With a byline, The Skinny is just another opinion piece.
We Didn't Insult All Seniors, Just the Ones Who Drive Like CrapI am 75 years old and a member of AARP, and I drive more than 12 mph. I resent your remarks against senior citizens, and I don't care for your "toilet tonsil" remark. ("Summertime," Editor's Note, June 3).
Senior citizens drive slower but well more than 12 miles per hour. I am one of them and I also have a safe driver insurance policy form Allstate. Do you have parents, other relatives or friends who are senior citizens? If you do, you are insulting them! And what are you going to say if you reach 75 and are still driving?
There is no reason for senior citizens to read your paper if we are going to be insulted!
Trust Land Proposal Is a Complicated SubjectThe letter by Daniel R. Paterson of the Center for Biological Diversity ("Opposition to Trust Land Proposal," June 3) underscores a sharp divergence of opinion among conservationists over state trust lands. Among the "few so-called conservancy groups" favoring the proposed reforms is one of the nation's largest and most respected, The Nature Conservancy. Their projects have helped protect millions of acres of open space and wildlife habitat. Locally, the conservancy's support helped secure voter approval of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
Patterson notes that developers and the livestock industry also support the proposals. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Both groups have deep pockets and wield immense political power. Any proposal that cannot gain their support or at least benign acceptance is likely to fail. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan provides an illustrative example. Developers, realtors and ranchers had a role in crafting the proposal. Had they actively opposed it, we would probably be crying over its demise instead of celebrating its passage.
Management of state trust land is a complex issue with far-ranging implications for conservation and public education. Fortunately much good information is available (pro at aztrustlands.com, con at arizona.sierraclub.org). I urge voters to carefully read and consider both positions.
William C. Thornton
The New Counselors Law Is FlawedWith regard to the new licensing law for mental-health professionals ("Head Games," May 6), some recent letter writers seem to believe that the new law assures professional education and therapeutic competence. However, the law and its implementing rules have the opposite effect for at least two significant groups of mental-health practitioners and their clients.
First, the law contains a specific waiver of licensure requirements for mental-health workers employed by state-funded agencies. Because the new law exempts them from the requirement to employ licensed professionals, some of these agencies have already begun the process of laying off their more experienced master's-level therapists in favor of staff with undergraduate degrees.
Second, under the new law, many professionals in private practice with impressive credentials and many years of experience will not be licensed and will lose their careers and livelihood. Their clients, meanwhile, will have to either abandon treatment or start over in establishing a therapeutic relationship. If this seems insignificant, consider the anxiety often produced by seeing a new medical doctor, as well as the research-established fact that the quality of the therapeutic relationship is the most important predictor of success in mental-health treatment. Then consider that the people whose choice of therapist is being denied are already in situations or have conditions that manifest in anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive or addictive behavior.
Hardly anyone believes that Arizona should not license or register mental-health professionals, to ensure quality care and protect vulnerable clients. However, the law and implementing rules, as they now stand, cause injury to both the public and professionals to an entirely unnecessary degree. Further, fairly simple "tweaking" of the law and rules would eliminate the injury and maximize protection for the public. Why can't this be addressed?
More on KXCI SquabbleIn a letter to the Weekly, James Cook ("Response From a KXCI Listener," June 10) raises what he believes to be a contradiction between my kindly expressed appreciation for recent changes at KXCI--including allowing a board call to the audience after many months of refusal--and my forceful letters on behalf of the Democracy Initiative and its members who want to restore accountability at our community radio station. This may possibly be the first time my sarcasm could be accused of being too subtle, but (unless Mr. Cook is doing the same) I accept the criticism. My only defense being a conviction that courteous behavior in defense of liberty is no vice.
There are a few things I am thankful to the KXCI board for:
1. I am grateful that KXCI did not continue its pursuit of an economic boycott of Piney Hollow Silverworks that they began at the Fourth Avenue Street Fair, or their unjustified complaint against my employer, former KXCI programmer and current Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll, because Piney Hollow and Carroll expressed support for a democratically run radio station. Our community would be even more grateful if they dropped their frivolous complaint to the Arizona State Bar against KXCI founder and lifetime member Bill Risner for exercising his First Amendment rights.
2. I am grateful that no other programmer at KXCI has lately been whimsically expelled from the station without recourse, as was done to John Murphy.
3. I am grateful that, after many months of adamantly insisting that it would be impossible to allow a grievance procedure for programmers and a volunteer rep on the board because of some fanciful tale of liability, KXCI is now "considering" these options.
With regards to the letter from KXCI General Manager Larry Bruce ("The Skinny's Coverage of KXCI Is 'Propaganda,'") he continues to be purposely and consciously factually challenged. He claims that the Democracy Initiative group has been "unwilling to sit down at the table," although we have done so on more than one occasion. Mr. Bruce persists in intentionally perpetuating the falsehood that the Democracy Initiative was opposed to petition verification, a fabrication that can be easily disproved by a simple view of documents posted on the Web site http://savekxci.tripod.com.
In the previous week's Media Watch column, Mr. James Reel explored how a new, commercially owned radio station has been adopting KXCI's alternative format and attracting many of its listeners. This begs the question: How will KXCI be able to stand apart from the copycats? We would suggest that restoring a democratically elected board would be a good and appropriate mark of distinction.
The secret and ugly fact is that the present KXCI board is an illegitimate entity. We will continue our efforts until we get a fair and verifiable election, in spite of--and partially because of--the misinformation being promulgated by KXCI management.
Scott D. Egan
For the Democracy Initiative
Now, Back to the Danehy LettersI anticipated Mr. Danehy's column (June 10), as he would undoubtedly have a strong opinion on the current reverence given to President Reagan and his legacy, good or bad. I was disappointed and surprised to find one glaring factual error, however.
His statement that "Bill Clinton was impeached for accepting oral sex from a groupie ... " is false. He was impeached for lying under oath before a federal grand jury, not for his adultery; an important point often lost on Clinton sympathizers. As Mr. Danehy knows, and preaches in his populist way, no one in our great nation is above the law. This includes President Clinton. As such, just like any American citizen, when sworn to tell the truth, he must.
Reagan Was a Great PresidentIn response to Tom Danehy's Ronald Reagan article, stating "Reagan sent this country careening wildly off course ..."
Mr. Reagan inherited a prime rate of 20 percent, consecutive consumer price increases of 13.3 percent and 12.5 percent, unemployment of 7.6 percent, two consecutive years of almost no growth and a Dow Jones of 971--just slightly higher than Lyndon Johnson's high of 901, 16 years earlier. These all gave way to an incredible economy, still the envy of the world.
The Soviets and the Warsaw Pact had deployed powerful SS20s on Western Europe's doorstep, yet Europe and liberals--and the liberal media here at home--resisted our efforts to balance this with cruise and Pershing Missiles.
The U.S. military was rebuilt. Mr. Reagan stayed the course with intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, as he did with the Strategic Defense Initiative, mockingly referred to by liberals as Star Wars. SDI would have made Moscow's arsenal obsolete. The top military men of the Soviet Union have stated emphatically that this was the breaking point of the Soviet effort.
Were you an adult during this period, Mr. Danehy? If so, did you somehow miss seeing this happen?