By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
By New Times
New Leash on Life
Thank God someone finally wrote about something that has been bothering me all my life; and I hope someone, somewhere (i.e., writers, producers, etc.) will read M. V. Moorhead's "Pet Reprieve" (August 1).
I hate it when animals are hurt in movies. It is not necessary! It does nothing to the worth of a story to have an animal injured or killed. This is being depicted on TV and movies much more lately and has to stop. I will not go to a movie where there is animal cruelty of any kind. I read reviews of any movie in which there is a pet--I only go if someone has seen the movie and I am assured nothing sad happens. It's gotten to the point where I am absolutely paranoid about this subject.
As a child, I was taken to a movie in which a dog was killed. I had to be taken screaming out of the theatre. I truly believe this was the beginning of my hatred for any type of animal mistreatment. I hope Moorhead's article is widely distributed to those who are in control of what is shown to the public. New Times is to be commended.
A Shot in the Dark
Howard Stansfield's reporting on the unlawful shooting of Thomas Glen Campbell in the back was a superlative piece of work ("GOT 'EM," August 8). I did have a few problems with the article, though, mainly the glossing-over of why Campbell ran in the first place.
He wasn't some innocent person fearful of wrongful police persecution. He was wired on meth and willing to flash a knife and threaten the life of a police officer. This in no way excuses Campbell's being shot in the back. The GITEM officer exercised poor judgment.
The FBI did not have to shoot Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge in 1992 as she stood in the doorway of a cabin the FBI was expressly forbidden to shoot at. The ATF did not have to endanger the lives of children at Waco by hosing down the place they lived in with gunfire. And GITEM did not have to shoot Thomas Glen Campbell as he tried to continue his futile flight.
Betty Mihalopoulos' article about Neighbors on Patrol gives me hope ("Vigilance or Vigilantes?", August 8). Patrick Walsh probably had more guts than brains confronting the "tuff" stuff while using his walker. He is to be commended as an advocate of change.
Those who complain about Harold Fox's gun should consider that carrying a weapon isn't illegal in Arizona. Besides, if I assess the personality of Harold Fox correctly, he is probably goaded by complaints.
Michael Kiefer's article "Owl See You in Court" (August 1) is propaganda about a couple of rogue public menaces. As a biology major, I'm sensitive to environmental concerns; however, this article perpetuates a myth of endangered species.
Peter Galvin and Kieran Suckling are not "heroes," but power-hungry fanatics with their own agenda. The article states, "Kieran, who was on the road, managed to do an overnight analysis of timber projects." Absurd! And base that against what? A year of Forest Service investigation? If these radicals have their way, they'll have ants and chickens on the endangered list.
Furthermore, the writer is ambiguous in his report because he states that Judge Carl Muecke's injunction was in effect until the Forest Service reached a "biological opinion." When it did, logging was resumed as the injunction made provisions for. Kiefer's article was as erroneous as it was one-sided. I welcome any defense of this silly report.