Letters

Viva La Resistance
Re: "Big Brother's Little Helper" by Mara Shalhoup (Jan. 14-20)

Thank you to the Weekly Planet for printing the truth about Big Brother and our quickly vanishing civil liberties. I would also like to point out that Database Technologies, the company that charged the taxpayers of Florida $4 million dollars to create the potential felon list to purge our voter rolls prior to the 2000 election, was merged with the company you are writing about: Choice Point. They are now one and the same. The Planet was also the first place I read about 98,000 people being barred from voting on election day that year.

I would, however, like to suggest a course of action for the readers of your paper. March 9 is the Democratic primary: This means that we, those of us who get our party affiliation changed to Democrat by the Feb. 7 deadline, can choose the Democratic nominee to replace Bush in November. That day, there is one candidate who voted against the PATRIOT Act that allows the federal government to read our e-mails and listen to our phone conversations without a search warrant: Dennis Kucinich.

We are faced with an important decision this year of whether we wish to go down a road of more government power and intrusion into our lives in the name of protection and security. We must choose if "Pre-Emptive strikes" are who we are as a nation or if we are a nation of compassion that promotes freedom, security, equality, and health in this world. Kucinich voted against pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Kucinich supports the rights of felons to vote, once they have completed their debts to society. Kucinich supports universal health care for every American. Kucinich supports medical marijuana, treatment instead of incarceration and decriminalizing marijuana for adults. Kucinich would repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement and would remove the United States from the World Trade Organization. I can't stress enough how important for our nation's future our decision will be. Forget the polls, forget the corporate media (goddess bless the Planet), just vote your heart. If we keep voting our fears, we will continue to create them.

—Anthony Lorenzo
Tampa

Rust Never Sleeps
Re: "A Question of Artistic Intent" by Eric Snider (Jan. 7-13)

All I can say is, "Shame on Hillsborough County." It is common knowledge that metal of that kind rusts, and for county officials to seek to hold the artist responsible is naive, at best, and malicious, at worst. I applaud Bradley Arthur for "sticking to his guns."

—Wayne A. Cypen
Miami Beach, Fla.

This controversy, particularly the county's position, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Either the county chose Bradley Arthur precisely because he articulated and built a physical object consistent with the county's "vision" or he was chosen because the county bought into his vision. Regardless, central to this vision was the understanding by both parties that Mr. Arthur must use recycled gunmetal. I find it ironic that the conflict arises from the fact that the recycled gunmetal is doing what, by nature, it must do — rust. I'm not swayed by the county's legal claim that the piece is "defective" because of the rust. If structural integrity were at issue, my position would be different.

What's really going on here? My understanding is that the issue first originated when someone complained about the rust. One thing led to another, and next thing you know we have a situation where the county is embarrassed about an expensive "eyesore." Is it possible that the person who complained may have "enjoyed" the art at first, but then changed his or her mind after the piece changed? Or did the person "hate" the piece to begin with and then conveniently found an "objective" reason to complain? When exactly did the piece evolve from being an artistic expression to an "eyesore"? Would it have made any difference if Mr. Arthur had the opportunity to explain both the symbolic component of the piece and the interactive (i.e., living) component of the work? Do we conduct a survey, measure the viewers' reactions and render an opinion based on the results?

My point is the art is "working" the way it's supposed to. People are engaged and discussing its meaning. It's not supposed to just be pretty and shiny, is it?

The "living" component of the piece, once understood, adds meaning to the issues the piece addresses. Perhaps it would be in the best interest of everyone if we worked together to promote a better understanding of the piece. Towards that end, I would suggest that the county should provide the artist with an opportunity to provide the public with additional information that would strengthen the piece by providing some guidance on its meaning.

Ironically, the quality of the art transcends the corrosive environment swirling around the piece itself! I hope that the county cleans up its act so that people can appreciate the piece as it is.

—Scott Rothstein
Via e-mail

Tearful Laughter
Re: "Satirically Sane" by Susan Edwards (Jan. 7-13)

I couldn't agree more with Susan Edwards when she says that a few satirical commentators are probably responsible for my continued sanity during this holocaust of bellicosity, corruption and prevarication.

I add that "Don't Panic," by Andisheh Nouraee, is also a delight and that, frankly, it takes almost all of the Planet to keep me sane at this stage. I will need continued massive doses to endure the decades it will take to reverse the damage caused by the debacle of 2000, provided courtesy of Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Ralph Nader, some defective ballots and five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

—Carl A. Schuh
St. Petersburg

This article appears in Feb 5-11, 2004.