Who Did You Love?
Re: Editor’s Note, “The Day After Tomorrow,” by David Warner (Nov. 3-9)
Welcome to the area. You've probably heard that a few thousand times, but not from me! I've enjoyed all of the articles you've written in the Planet since you've come aboard.
I was wondering why the Planet never made an official endorsement for President. And I definitely was looking forward to a lot more Bush-bashing, that never came, in the issues leading up to the election. Not that it could have made up the 300,000-vote deficit, but it would have been fun to read anyway. WMNF did a good job of it, but the Planet probably has a bigger audience than WMNF. But, there was plenty of information out there to show people what kind of evil douches Bush and his henchmen are. It was their responsibility to be informed.
I am very disappointed in Americans today, and I am definitely not feeling proud to be an American. We're probably in for a very scary four years that we, and the world, may never recover from. See you in Canada!
Travis May
Tampa
Editor's Reply: Thanks for your note. Although I agree with you there was always more Bush to bash, I do think Bush-bashers' voices were well-represented on our pages. As for the lack of presidential endorsement, there was a debate about that very subject within the Planet's parent company, Creative Loafing — one position being that it's impossible to endorse in a presidential race without meeting the candidate, which is something that we were not able to do. I do regret that, with limited staff and my own short time here, we didn't have the time or resources to meet with and endorse candidates in local races, something I hope to remedy by the next round. And I would wager the presidential endorsement policy will change by 2008. Hope you haven't moved to Canada by then.
No Smoking Gun
Re: “Straight Dope,” by Cecil Adams (Nov. 3-9)
I Iearned way back in high school debating class that the problem with some issues is the question itself, not the data that "proves" or "disproves" the proposition. In general, any question about gun control falls into that category. The best way to disarm an opponent who uses their own data is to use your own. Both sides of this issue have their own database of facts that cancel each other out.
Since the efficacy of gun control cannot be proven or disproven, I choose to take the position that, at least for the law-abiding and sane, owning guns is OK. I'm sure that the folks who pitched the prohibition of alcohol years ago and those who do the same regarding drug laws today have ample "proof" to back up their arguments. All of the data one way or the other basically cancels itself out whenever an emotion-based argument is advanced, and I take the side of freedom on this one.
Leonard Martino
Tampa
AND THE MORAL IS … An anonymous admirer shares his opinion of Tom Tomorrow.
This article appears in Nov 10-16, 2004.