The Sound of One Knee Jerking
Of course! How could I have been so blind? All those organizations opposing the war are a mindless collection of communists, dictator apologists and far-left animal-torturing psychos according to David Bramer's "article." There's no way ordinary, God-fearing Americans would ever question what their President tells them to do. No wonder you fired your reporting staff; you can't have anything like objectivity cloud your news features. That would be bad for business, wouldn't it?
If you really want to retain some semblance of balance in your so-called journalism, I suggest you allow another local "writer" to put together an article addressing the reasons many people see this coming war as an exercise in hypocrisy. In fact, I'll gladly volunteer to do it, if only to prove that misgivings on the impending conflict are not the product of fringe tendencies but of actual rational deliberation. Unless of course you feel that would be bad for business as well. Which begs the question: what exactly is your business again?
—Ali Sugerman, via e-mail
Glass Houses
I am constantly appalled by the lack of proper grammar and spelling in your paper, especially considering that I read only certain sections. The homonyms "site" and "sight" are incorrectly used four out of six times in the text of the article. The word "sight" is incorrectly used to mean "[web]site" twice. The word "sight" is used to mean "site" (as in, a place) twice. To add insult to injury, the word "site" to mean "[web]site" is actually correctly used twice in that very same article, in addition to the correct spelling in the article's header. That's four errors and three correct usages of the homonyms "site" and "sight" in one very small article. Who's running your shop? This is the SECOND time I have written to your newspaper pointing out obvious errors which are invisible only to spell- check-addicted Gen-Xers and others with either very little journalistic talent or a non-existant work ethic. SOMEBODY over there PLEASE pick up a DICTIONARY once in awhile, OK?? Or — better yet — a THESAURUS. And please keep your dictionary of synonyms, antonyms, and honomyns handy, O.K.?
—Chris Weidman, via e-mail
Editor's note: Thanks for pointing out our stupid errors. The appropriate people have been beaten senseless and now publicly humiliated. Normally, we correct letters for spelling and grammar, but we thought we should print yours as is. Can you find your own mistakes?
What? Bush a Hypocrite?
On the topic of weapons of mass destruction, President Bush made this comment during his State of the Union address: "The only possible explanation, the only possible use for these weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack." Does anybody else in this country see the fundamental hypocrisy in this statement? The United States has more of these weapons than any other nation in the world. It seems that by President Bush's own logic, The United States is the most intimidating, the most dominating, and the most destructive nation in the world, at least as far as weapons are concerned. If these weapons can only be used for evil, than how can it be possible for the United States to use them for good? If we insist that everyone else disarm, then why not us? You can't have it both ways, George. And by the way, if weapons can only be used for intimidation, domination, and destruction, then how about gun control?
—Mike Stack, via email
Blind Optimism
I disagree with Doris regarding her comment that 25 percent of the population is spiritually twisted. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear the number is terribly higher. By grouping segments of society you will see that I am right. Take motorcyclists: Nine of 10 do not wear helmets when they flash by. This is thoughtless. It's not just taking a spill that will ruin a day; an itsy bitsy piece of gravel flying up can impair a man in the worst way. Cigarette smokers: Of those I witness puffing, nine of 10 have no clue what an ashtray is. Nine of 10 run over animals without batting an eye. It's worse than anyone can imagine the ignorance that lurks in the minds of the many. When Doris wonders why others oppose the obvious good, what she really means is, why do they not see?
—Charlie Stehlin, via e-mail
Who Ya Gonna Kick Around Now?
Apparently another one bit the dust and all things Freddy Mercury. The lovely Rochelle Renford is leaving my li'l planet. Unfortunately, she is leaving before I get the chance to make fun of her.
If Minnie Mouse with the vocabulary of Dennis Miller and the writing style of Virginia Woolf thinks she is gonna get away with this, she is sadly mistaken. Who is going to write about soiled underwear for us now? I guess I will have to find someone else to pick on. (I almost feel sorry for Julie Garisto.)
I cannot say how sorry I am that some of you are leaving. You are all very talented.
To be frank, I don't like some of your political views, and some of your opinions are not to my liking, but your voices need to be heard. If Rochelle Renford is not going to speak up for the oppressed communities of South St. Pete and various blighted neighborhoods, who will?
As for the people who are left, they are mad talented and they may even go somewhere where they will be appreciated.
Good luck to all of you.
—Jerry Nixon, Tampa
Thank goodness you fired the news staff. Now I no longer have to go out of my way to obtain the Weekly Planet since the St. Petersburg Times' Weekend contains the same reduced information, delivered to my doorstep. Perhaps the Weekend will hire Trevor Aaronson and spice up their rag with cutting-edge local issues not covered in their cover paper.
—Powell Foster, St Petersburg
Doggedly Humane
Kudos to Patti Grose for her letter about dog tracks. Dog racing is a cruel, unnecessary industry. There is no reason to have these races in existence. There are plenty of other humane things to do without causing cruelty to animals.
—Belinda Blease, Largo
This article appears in Feb 5-11, 2003.
