|  | 
|
 | ||
                           |
|
 |
|
Letters the week of 11/14/02
Weekly sex change Please allow me to say at the outset that I like The Boulder Weekly. I really really do. Please let no one interpret my critical observation as a condemnation of the paper itself, OK? Having stated this caveat, however, I must say that one year later, I am still as totally mystified by the self-congratulatory tone of Stewart Sallo's comments about "adult services ads"-whatever they may be-as I was then ("Sex change, one year later," Stew's Views, Nov. 7). Mr. Sallo spends an entire column on Page 8 describing the suffering of the paper because they no longer carry these mythical ads. What does he mean? Sex? On Page 30 there is an enormous ad for Bella's "Topless & Totally Nude" club. On Page 31 there is a slightly smaller ad for The Bustop-now also "all nude" in the Platinum room. On Page 49 are ads for "Tantra bodywork." On Page 52 are ads for "Chatlines" and 28 individual ads for "Adult Services." I'll be nice now and assume that all the ads taking up a full page on Page 50 are all simply sincere lonely individuals seeking company for no remuneration. What, may I ask, is the Weekly actually celebrating? I am at a loss. Please elucidate. How on earth can any person capable of reading and understanding the English language not be convinced that the "Adult Services" ads are offering something more than mere company? What on Earth is all your self-congratulatory suffering nonsense all about? Puzzledly Yours, Peter F. Johnson/Longmont Congratulations Stew. To act ethically is to speak a language which too many businessmen simply do not understand. They hunt for your "real" motives. Doing the right thing just does not seem enough. Sherman Schachter/Boulder I commend you for dropping the adult services and keeping them out of your paper. It's nice not to have to read around them. Thanks. Mick Kocjancic/Boulder Jaaaysus Christ! Regarding Dick Morris's column "It's Not The Economy Stupid," (news, Nov. 7) let's get something straight: Bush did not win the midterm elections for his party's candidates, the Democrats lost the midterm elections for their constituents. Why? It has nothing to do with "values" or partisan gridlock. (The American voter doesn't know shit about partisan gridlock, because they don't watch CSPAN!) And the Republican Party doesn't really exhibit values as most people recognize them. That notion predicates a moral conscience-conspicuously absent from the Republican Party's angry stance on most issues. Instead, what we get from Republicans is fear, fear, fear: "Fear everything, so we can save you from everything." Sure, lots of midwestern country music fans love guns, hate minorities, immigrants, abortion, Sadam Hussein and progressive thinking, love guns, national pride and "Jaaaysus Christ, Amen!" And those are all "values" of a sort (that deserve a voice), but the mistake the Democrats made, and I hope they learned their lesson, was playing to the middle, instead of being Democrats. A Democrat should not try to be a Republican ("Hey, we're really close on these issues, so vote for us instead")-that's what the Democrats should have learned this election. Have they learned it? We'll see in a few days if they elect a real liberal (Pelosi) as House Democrat leader. If that happens, we'll see where the Republican Party's "values" of pre-emptive war, tax cuts for the wealthy, unbridled corporate greed, degradation of Constitutional rights, contempt for the environment, and "Jaaaysus Christ" IN-YOUR-FACE hold up to the scrutiny of the American voter in 2004. D. Read Spear/Boulder The article, "It's not the economy stupid," by Disk Morris struck me as simplistically missing the point. Morris wrote, "When one party or the other tries to use a slumping economy to its advantage, it is shooting blanks." Just because the economy wasn't in the voters' interest this year, doesn't mean it won't be a useful political tool in two years. We don't know where the economy will be in two years. If enough people realize, that the Republicans aren't protecting their environment, they will vote that too. Morris' article was subtitled: "Republicans won by focusing on values, not money." This can sound good to many this year, but when people are scared of losing their jobs, have lost their jobs, or are hungry, their values will change. Mark S. Kern/Boulder Pickin' on Peacenicks Why does Wayne Laugesen choose to ridicule anyone who is interested in promoting peace, whatever their modest means? ("Boulder's soldier of peace," Wayne's Word, Oct. 31). All levels of participation are valid and badly needed; every warm body who is awake to the impending catastrophe the Bush Administration is promoting is needed to avert disaster. While I recognize Wayne's role as community whip, I think his appetite for judgment and polarization cheapens his impact. One can praise an honorable man for his good deeds without resorting to pot shots at the "peacenicks." Circe Moss/Boulder Israel, a democracy Victor Forsythe, in his letter, "Theocracy, not a democracy" (Nov. 7), illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of an anti-Israel position, by insisting that Israel cannot be a democracy as it has neither constitution nor bill of rights. Mr. Forsythe, it is not the name of a document that determines the way a country is governed; it is rather, the content of the document, under any name. For instance, communist China has a constitution. So what? Democracy is the "philosophy that insists on the right and capacity of a people, acting directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes" (encyclopedia.com). A democratic government is one in which the citizenry shares in directing the activities of state. That is to say, they vote, the majority rules. The reason one hears "multiple thousands" of times that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East is because it's true. Furthermore, it's a significant truth, when trying to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict (a good idea before voicing an opinion). The Israeli government is a parliamentary democracy, based on the 1948 Proclamation of Independence and what they call "basic laws" legislated by the Knesset, which lay down citizens' rights. Unlike the U.S., Israel engages a plethora of political parties; there were 32 running for the Knesset in 1999! General elections are held at least once every four years, during which every political party presents a list of candidates. The percentage of votes received for each party's list determines the proportional number of that party to serve in the Knesset. In 1992, a new Israeli election law created a parliamentary/presidential hybrid structure, whereby the Prime Minister is elected directly by the voters, and must receive over 50 percent of the popular vote. This is more direct, and therefore conceivably more democratic than, for instance, our electoral college (even though we have a constitution and they don't). It's also interesting to note that in 1996 five candidates ran for the prime ministership, including the first Israeli Arab candidate. In our esteemed democracy, we have yet to see an Arab run for the highest office, nor a Jew, nor even a woman. Back in left field, Mr. Forsythe offers his (superfluous) opinion about Israel allotting monies to that nation's rabbis. Israel is not America, but its own sovereign nation. As such, its policies reflect the will of its people, "controlling their institutions for their own purposes." Believe it, and be glad. Anne Lieberman/Media Watch, Jewish Identity Center/Boulder In his letter, "Theocracy, not a democracy," Victor Forsythe tries to argue that Israel is not a democracy because he saw on the Internet that Israel:
Guess what? The brutal theocracy known as England:
Not all democracies have constitutions, and no other nation has a Bill of Rights like the US. (In fact, the US and England had a disagreement over this very issue once. Try Googling "Declaration of Independence.") Theocracy? Palestinians in Israel have freedom of religion to practice Islam. Next time try looking up the definition of democracy: a government where power is vested in the people and exercised through free elections. Palestinians living in Israel under Sharon can vote. Palestinians living in the West Bank under Arafat cannot. Sadly, Mr. Forsythe's letter is a typical example of the ignorance of Israel's critics. Scott Helgeson/Arvada Censor this letter Ah, yes... heavens to murgatroid... too much free speech in America. Anyway, that's what Curis Sliwa, red-beanied lick-spittle of Australian (er, American) media mogul Rupert Murdoch and one of your readers say. It's illuminating, in a sad sort of way, that many of the modern young American zombies align themselves philosophically with the 50 percent of Americans who cannot read, write or comprehend beyond the level of a run-of-the-mill English, French or German 10-year-old. It reminds me of a circa 1960 hairy, glassy-eyed, parroting the empty "what is" drivel found inside a Khalil Gibran "Prophet" book. But that was another time. The current Kevin-in-the-street wisdom shrieks that "so many groups escalate beyond traditional freedom of speech." Harrumph! Freedom of speech, as a concept, did not exist in the nutty theocracies which co-ruled Europe and the Middle East (and Ireland) for centuries before some now-famous free-thinking English colonials pledged their "lives and their sacred honor" to end, at least in North America, the mind-numbing hold the Church held on ordinary citizens and the state of savagery that is monarchical rule. Thanks to the insistence of Thomas Jefferson, free speech was written into our Constitution, so that no matter how many people run from intellectual self-serving propaganda without the slightest doubt, reason will live on... free speech, too. Pierre Ardans/Longmont Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
|
