By Amy Silverman
By Olivia LaVecchia
By Monica Alonzo and Stephen Lemons
By Chris Parker
By Michael Lacey
By Weston Phippen
Guilt by association: Thank you to Robert Nelson for his January 22 story "Big Bad Developer." George Johnson should go to jail for what appears to be a long history of criminal activities associated with his big bad developments. Pinal County officials should be ashamed of themselves. If for no other reason than homeland security, they should nix the enemy George Johnson's plans to build Arizona's sixth largest city near Ironwood National Monument.
Ranch hands: My husband and I recently bought a house in Johnson Ranch. We consider ourselves a young hip couple that tries to stay up to date with our everyday politics and community beat. After reading this article, I am ashamed to say I am not as aware as I should be. Knowing what this schmuck has pulled, not only causing damage to the underdog, but to our environment, I want to go back to our brand-new house, pack our boxes right up again, and get far away from being associated with this man. Living out on the streets seems closer to nirvana than this guy is trying to offer. Thanks for making the awareness heightened.
Name withheld by request
Suicide squeeze: Considering the fragile state of live music venues in the Valley, I find it downright irresponsible and stupid that Brendan Joel Kelley would choose to slam the Mason Jar's owner and local promoters over the SuicideGirls' show being moved ("Anatomy of a Fiasco," January 22). Now, maybe the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control will come sniffing around and dredge up some "violations" and we will witness another club struggling to survive. Maybe not. But this whole thing smacks of some lonely, desperate, porn-crazed soul who didn't get his fix. But I guess you have to resort to these "stories" when there's not much left to write about, even if you are biting the hand that feeds.
First time's the charm: I agree with any review that praises the poignant film Monster ("American Girl," Gregory Weinkauf, January 15). My difficulty with the New Times review was the insight about Tom, the Vietnam veteran played by Bruce Dern, being the "only family and occasional john" of Charlize Theron's Aileen. There was nothing to indicate that the "occasional john" was a part of their relationship. The last two of the three scenes of them together specifically indicated that nothing had ever gone on between them, and it was because of this lack of a sexual dimension that he was her "only family." I know it's a small issue, but it changes the tenor of their relationship, which changes the tenor of the movie, which means the reviewer saw a different movie than the one actually presented. Which could have been easily remedied if the reviewer had seen the movie again. As an aside: Christina Ricci's character, Selby, "who's been dispatched to conservative Florida relatives," wasn't related to the people she lived with in Florida, but that's a really minor error that doesn't change our feel for the characters.
The great filmmaker Peter Kubelka said that one shouldn't talk about a film unless they've seen it 12 times (or was it 14? -- I'm going from memory). And I know that only the most obsessive movie geek or child with a new Disney video sees a movie 12 or more times. And I know most reviewers are required to make their judgments and present a critical analysis after only one viewing. And I enjoy reading and watching movie reviews, probably more than most people. Yet how much weight should we give any review or critical analysis done by an individual who has seen the movie only one time?
Unanswered questions: Two lives lost in this accident? Plus lifelong injuries ("Double Hit," Amy Silverman, January 15)? The woman who hit Jennifer Morse was not injured -- and she left the hospital and no one ever saw her again?
Did she get a citation? Did she go to court?
No mention of a lawyer tracking down this person and putting a lien on her for the rest of her life?
This story should have been titled "Hit & Run."
Unjust law: I read your article about the Jennifer Morse auto accident and the wrongful way the hospital is extracting money from the auto insurance policy. I didn't know this law existed. The hospitals make their deals with the insurance companies for the reduced rate for medical cost, and to double bill the auto insurance policy is just wrong.
This law needs to be changed. Let me know what I can do. This is just another of many unfair government laws that need to be revised.
It's double something: What is interesting is that the patient wants to settle her case with the insurance company on the total bill submitted and not based on the HMO and PPO contracted rate with the health-care providers. The change in the law should also specify that the settlement has to be based on the reduced rate and not on the total charges. I am sure the claimants would not like that idea. Mrs. Morse calls the hospital action double billing. I call the patient attempt to screw the health providers as double milking.