Tuttle's Hostility Toward Hillary Clinton Is BafflingConnie Tuttle's article on Hillary Clinton (Jan. 31) was so inanely vitriolic, one wonders whether she forgot to take her lithium.
She writes, "If women vote for Hillary because she is female, it would be a telling comment on how far we have yet to go." The reason for this, she says, is that suffragettes used the fact that black men could vote while white women could not as a rallying point. I don't think Tuttle's logic eludes me so much as there isn't any there to begin with: That would actually be a reason to vote for a woman--232 years of male hegemony, and we've still never elected a female president.
Then there is Tuttle's opening salvo that Hillary somehow has become the first lady of the stage. While Hillary is very competent at handling her emotions in public, one voice crack and an unshed tear do not a Jodie Foster make. But after years of sucking it up after persecution by rivals, being humiliated by her husband on a national stage, forging alliances with the same people who persecuted her--all the while doing worthwhile liberal work--and then launching herself into grueling political warfare, only to be handed her walking papers by talking heads, she just may have had a fragile moment.
Why's Danehy Such a Name-Calling Hater?Tom Danehy (Feb. 14) should stick to writing about something he knows about, like high school sports. According to surveys, 40 percent of Arizonans are independents. Does that make us all a "bunch of whiny, cloying, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too brats"? It is interesting how he uses name-calling to point out how immature we all are. Does he also feel that way about all of the people in Wisconsin who have a completely open primary?
Frankly, I don't understand his hatred for those who don't subscribe to the two-party monopoly. Not accepting people who are different than him is a sign of maturity that he doesn't display.
Open Primaries May Have Stopped George W. BushTom Danehy's rant about independents voting in the primaries brings to mind Judge Richard A. Posner's observation: "News coverage of a political campaign is oriented to a public that enjoys competitive sports, not one that is civic-minded."
Hey, Tom, it isn't a basketball game: It's our country's next four or eight years. Selecting candidates is too important to leave it to the hard-core extremists in a party--the religious right and the MoveOn crowd. A closed primary empowers the most extreme elements of each party to frame the either/or choice presented to the voters. An open primary allows independents a say in what they have to choose from in November, thereby diluting the clout of the extremists.
Allowing independents to vote helps the parties by giving them a better sense of what is going to sell to the general public. Letting in independents moves the parties to the center. It is ultimately the swing voter who decides the election; why should he or she have to choose between candidates selected by people who take their cues from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore?
If more primaries had been open in 2000, is it possible that the Christian right might have failed to nominate George W. Bush? Might an open-primary system have saved us from the Iraq war? Think about it.
Danehy's Right, but His Sports Comparison Is WrongTom Danehy brings up a good point with a horrible anecdote.
Open primaries are indeed dumb. Why, just look at Michigan, which has truly open primaries where independents cast meaningful ballots. This year, Democrats went and voted for Willard Romney, gave him his first victory of the season and most likely kept him in the race longer. In previous years, Republicans in Michigan have done similar stunts to help various embarrassing Democratic candidates win the primary. Or look at the independents' love affair with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama. Just how many of these people are devoted enough to the candidate to register with the party that person represents?
Does Danehy talk about either of these? Nope. He talks about some guy that was at his polling place who was upset that his vote didn't really count.
Even Small, Cute Dogs Can Get Euthanized in Pima CountyI had no idea that even small dogs in Tucson need as much help as they do. I thought that everyone loved lap dogs, and that a small, cute, friendly pup would never be euthanized just for being skinny, right?
I didn't realize I was wrong until my husband and I started to foster for the Arizona Chihuahua Rescue. I remember the first time we went to our coordinator's house. We were surrounded by a pack of Chihuahuas as they licked us and vied for our laps. Where did all these little dogs come from?
It turned out that quite a few of them come from the Pima Animal Care Center ("Creature Comforts," Currents, Feb. 14). Our coordinator told us: "They call me and say, 'Come and pick this one up, or we'll have to euthanize.' ... That's why I have so many dogs here."
She was right. Why does Tucson have an animal-control center that is still the size it was when the population of Tucson was 330,000 people?
Our first foster dog was named Phineas, but we called him Phinney for short. A 5-pound Chihuahua with deer markings, he was cute, but so skinny that you could see all his ribs, spine and hip bones. That's why they were threatening to euthanize him: He was too underweight to keep around as long as it would take to bring him up to weight so he could be adopted out.
When we got him home, we realized that he had caught some sort of kennel cough at PACC. He smelled bad, too. We fretted over him, fed him hamburger and antibiotics, gave him lots of lap time and took him for walks. He got better and started to play and beg and show normal dog behaviors. He became handsome, and we knew he'd get adopted right away.
Gandhi said: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." I hope that Tucson can step up.
No Place Is Immune From Potential ProblemsSomething really "piqued" my attention while reading a Jan. 31 letter, "Wouldn't Skate-Park Money Be Better Spent on Sidewalks or the Homeless?"
I won't argue where money is best spent, but the writers took a U-turn with their comment that such a park may "become a haven for drug deals and graffiti." With no disrespect, I offer the following to these concerned people: If you build a neighborhood, it may become a haven for drug deals and graffiti; build a museum, and it may become a haven; you can even build an elementary school, and it may become a haven. No place is immune.
Lastly, it's pitiful that this concept is more than 10 years old. Give these kids some skate parks already!
CorrectionsIn "Bono in Your Face" (Cinema, Feb. 28), we reported that U2's drummer is Adam Clayton; the drummer is actually Larry Mullen Jr.
In "Thank You for Not Sharing" (Feb. 28), we reported that one of the lawyers for Deborah Weed is Brad Heurlin; his name is actually Bruce Heurlin.
We apologize for these errors.