By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
By New Times
Dunces With Wolves
My problem with the article "The Governor Who Cried Wolf" (November 30) is one of thought process. That is, writer Michael Kiefer does not even attempt to see the other side of the issue. If a neighbor's dog was running free and "marked" a tree in one's front yard, one would call the neighbor and complain. The second or third time the dog was loose, one would call the police or Rabies Control and have that dog "taken care of." Why, then, do city folks want to turn wolves loose on their country neighbors?
Wolves are predators and carnivores, and so is man. For the most part, man raises the poultry, cattle and sheep we eat, or he buys it in a grocery store as the fruit of someone else's labor. Wolves (like sharks) are eating machines. It is said that they kill the old and the infirm--natural selection. In fact, they kill whatever they can catch, and they run in "packs." A baby calf, a newborn deer, a mother cow "down" to deliver a calf are quite acceptable prey.
Why in the world would a pack of wolves chase deer, antelope or even rabbits when domesticated animals like cattle or sheep cannot run as far or as fast and, in some cases, the mothers will just stand there and watch their young be killed? I have had people tell me that wolves wouldn't even recognize domesticated animals as prey. Wolves are smart--almost as smart as coyotes. They can and will figure out the "easy kill."
J. Robert Bogle
Turn Over a New Belief
As a member of the Church of Scientology for more than 26 years, I can honestly say I am fed up with self-proclaimed "dogooders" evaluating for me that my religion is a "cult" ("Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans," Tony Ortega, November 30). Obviously, deprogrammer Rick Ross has never looked up the definition of "cult," and only bases his conclusions on his own warped sense of reality. Even if Scientology were a cult, who or what gives Ross the right to decide the beliefs of another person? Granted, one could get almost anyone to give up a belief about anything with enough force or duress. However, all people have the right to their own religious or ideological beliefs, and, as I recall, that is one of the main reasons we left the old country and came here.
Shame on New Times for printing an article so obviously biased and full of "facts" given only by the dissidents. Why not ask the other 99-plus percent of Scientologists who are in agreement and have enough information about the subject to offer a valid viewpoint? The reporter and his subject, Rick Ross, do not have that information. Therefore, if one starts out with false data to build a story, then one can only come up with false assertions and lies. That makes it more sensational, perhaps, but not necessarily better--and definitely not ethical--to distort the truth about something, intentionally or not.
I think it's great to be on the "cutting edge" of journalism, and New Times is usually there. But if the newspaper doesn't print the truth about its subjects, eventually no one will read it, and it will have lost its credibility and the public's ear, and therefore its purpose for existence.