UA Club Volleyball Player Takes Umbrage With DanehyI am writing in response to some of the things said about the UA women's club volleyball team in one of Mr. Danehy's recent columns (April 21). He talked about the shirts that we had made being banned at nationals. They were banned, but not from being worn in public, only from being worn in the gym. This only lasted one day. After we were told not to wear the shirts, we negotiated with National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association staff members and censored the words they found inappropriate.
These shirts are a tradition at NIRSA volleyball nationals. They are traded before the Men's Division I championship match, and every year, teams try to come up with a shirt that everyone wants. (I ended up trading one of my "debauched" shirts with one of the NIRSA staff members who banned and censored it.) Yes, some people might find them to be offensive and "boring," but you have to keep in mind the shirts aren't made to impress anyone, especially guys like Tom, who have nothing better to do than insult the club team his daughter used to play with.
There is one more thing Tom forgot to mention: His daughter and her entire Ivy League club team were sporting "debauched" shirts which implied they were just looking for a one night stand, something along the lines of, "We're not here to TALK; we're just here to SCORE."
Tom was also completely off base in implying that the team was held down by the smut on their shirts. As a coach, he should know something about team chemistry.
I hope that in the future, Mr. Danehy tries to point out the whole truth in his articles and not just the partial truths he feels will be most insulting. Hopefully next year, we will do better, and hopefully Tom will start to enlighten Tucson with the entire story.
Proud Member of the UA women's club volleyball team
Tucson's Screwing the Little Guy While Rewarding the BigI just read the article entitled "Development Derailed" (Currents, May 12). Dave Devine did an excellent job. However, I would like to address a statement which was made by Sarah More, of the Tucson Planning Department. More states that the research and development uses in the Tech Park "are sort of grandfathered" by the regulations which Pima County has yet to adopt anyway. What I would like to know: What does "sort of grandfathered" mean? This is exactly why I have stated that there is a selective enforcement of the regulations.
The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) was adopted in February 2004. Members of all jurisdictions (including Pima County) took part in the creation of the document, as noted in the first section entitled "Acknowledgements."
The main issue/concern from the beginning has been safety and the retention of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The Airport Environs Zone Ordinance No. 10073, adopted by mayor and council, states in paragraph 18.104.22.168B (Purpose) "Addresses potentially life threatening situations in areas exposed to aircraft accident potential through restrictions on the congregation of large numbers of people or high concentrations of ... ."
How is it then that Citi Cards was allowed to take up residency with 1,300 employees in the Tech Park, which is dead-center in the flight path, yet I am restricted from having a two-employee Dairy Queen on my property, which is on the eastern most boundary of the flight path?
If the JLUS was in fact a joint study, why did the city of Tucson representatives sell us out by allowing other jurisdictions to ignore the requirements agreed upon, while holding those of us that fall under their jurisdiction to the tightest restrictions? This is nothing but a matter of money and power, and once again the private property owner gets the short end of the stick.
I would like to reiterate that I am a stern supporter of the base. I just believe that the city of Tucson representation has far exceeded the intent and purpose of the JLUS.
Patrick F. Callahan
Offended by Reviewers' Pope JokesIn "Everything Cinematic Is Illuminated" (May 12), snide comments were made about the pope. One line went, "Does the new pope wear a funny new hat?" The other was making a statement about the obvious by saying, "... like the pope needs a condom."
As a member of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, I find it is open season on Catholics and politically correct to bash Catholics and the pope in particular.
No one in the media would dare say anything about the garb of a Muslim cleric, even those espousing murder of Americans. I dare say no one would write something using a rabbi and his skull cap. But it is acceptable to beat up on the Catholics.
Surely your reviewers can come up with metaphors that do not defame the Catholic Church. Tucson has had a proud heritage with the Church. Many of our founding pioneers were Catholic, and a large percentage of the current population is Catholic. Having gone through the turmoil of the homosexual abuses by priests in the diocese, now is not the time to continue to persecute people because of their religion.
I thought we had put this behind us years ago, but perhaps your reviewers buy into the Ku Klux Klan's viewpoint of Catholics and are reborn newspaper people mimicking their ancestors that commonly ran ads which included the epitaph "no Irish need apply" a century-and-a-half ago. It seems they could come up with something on bin Laden, a universally despised agent of evil, rather than their fellow citizens who happen to be of the Catholic faith.
Jeffrey J. Hill
Props for Wash CleanupKudos to Susan Taylor for organizing the Rillito Wash Cleanup on Saturday, May 14, and a special thanks to the Tucson Weekly for featuring it ("Beautifying Tucson," City Week, May 12). More than 40 people responded, had a great time and demonstrated what a half-mile of clean river bed looks like.
Rebuttals to Downing Lack LogicWhile Renée Downing's "Border Quiz" on April 21 clearly showed some research on her part, the two rebuttal letters in your May 19 issue offer nothing more than personal perceptions and anecdotes to supposedly prove Ms. Downing wrong.
Jan Crawford writes about one undocumented immigrant who told her "he was sleeping in the park." She adds that she "saw others doing this." Should we extrapolate from her observation that parks all over America are in grave danger of being slept in by undocumented immigrants? Ironically, Jan begs for "common sense" in her second paragraph, but she could use some common sense when she compares the northeastern states to California, Arizona and the other states that have become dependent on cheap labor. Has Jan stopped to consider the differences in their economies? I think California exports a bit more produce than Vermont.
In a similar vein, Greg Slusser writes that he has "witnessed illegal immigration first-hand!" Gosh, Greg--that sounds horrible! Were you scared? He adds the irrelevant fact that he's "a registered Democrat." As far as I know, the Democrat Party doesn't have a screening process. Tucson's very own Joe Sweeney, who is just as racist as he is ugly, was once a Democrat. If Jan and Greg want to do something about undocumented immigration, maybe they should start with some objectivity and critical thinking--and some research.