Letters From the Issue of Thursday, March 1, 2007

I believe Lawless is being shunned because she's a lesbian, not because her views don't make sense. People like Chris Simcox simply can't deal with the fact that a homo has more of a following than they do. It's sad.
Name withheld by request

Paging Mike Hunt . . .: Laine Lawless is clueless, but I'd bet the farm that she's got a bigger dick than [Minuteman leader] Chris Simcox. They don't call him the "Little Prince" for nothing!
Mike Hunt, Phoenix

'Tard with the same brush: "Crusader" Laine Lawless is just another bullshit loser who's gotten TV cameras to come out because she burns the Mexican flag. I love the way New Times demonstrated that not only is she an ignorant moron, but so are the other pathetic rednecks who make so-called careers out of bashing Mexicans in the name of stopping "illegal" immigration.

Lawless is such a ridiculous fool that I laughed out loud several times as I was reading your story. It's no wonder that the Minutemen won't have anything to do with her; her presence in their movement would make them look even dumber than they already look to anybody who got past third grade.

She obviously has no idea that she comes across as a laughable retard. The really sad thing is . . . if she actually confronted a Mexican coyote, with her gun on her hip, she'd be in big trouble. That would prove once and for all how tough she's not. She'd get her ugly fat ass kicked all the way back to the Bay Area.

Your story was great, because it exposed her and the other vigilantes (like Minutemoron Chris Simcox) — who like to delude themselves into thinking they're keeping Mexicans out of the U.S., by acting all bad-ass and "patrolling" the border — for what they are: dumb-as-a-rock trailer trash.
Roberto Morales, Phoenix

Deniability

FYI, Arthur Butz is a real person: Kevin Barrett, in his letter ("Non-Denial Denial," February 15) regarding The Bird's "Denier's Conference" item ( The government version of 9/11 events is manifest bullshit. So is the conventional wisdom concerning the "Holocaust," which Professor Arthur Butz of Northwestern University aptly termed The Hoax of the Twentieth Century in his book by that title published in 1976.

So what else is new? The government, along with the rest of "the establishment," lies to us continuously.

Who believes their version of the JFK assassination? Whatever fault one may care to find with Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, it's clearly closer to the facts than the Warren Commission Report.

Who believes what they have told us about the Waco massacre or the Oklahoma City bombing?

The Robert Kennedy assassination, the Martin Luther King assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein, etc., etc., etc. We live practically on an exclusive diet of bullshit.

And the "Holocaust"? Perhaps it's the biggest bullshit story of them all. It's way past time to grind that particular sacred cow into hamburger, although it would surely give a mighty case of indigestion to worshipful adherents.
Jack Martin, Scottsdale

Truth can be strange: While conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett took issue with The Bird's comparing his lot to Holocaust deniers, I see the point entirely.

It's not that these 9/11 conspiracy nuts refuse to believe that the Nazis killed millions of Jews, it's that they refuse to see the obvious parallels [in the modus operandi] between them and people who refuse to accept that there were concentration camps and gas chambers.

Hello? Both Holocaust deniers and deniers of the government's version of 9/11 refuse to face facts. They refuse to accept the obvious. While many of us would like to believe that the evil Bush Administration planned and carried out 9/11, the facts just aren't there to support this point of view.

It's amazing that so many people are wasting their lives trying to prove something that's patently absurd.
John Mackie, Tucson

Ripping Yarn

Guilty until the check clears: Thank you for your unbiased article about the Ripoff Report Web site ("The Real Rip-Off Report," Sarah Fenske, February 1). I had no idea any of that could be legal in America, but there it is.

There are many innocent people who may never be able to clear their names or reputations because of that site, even if what was said is a complete lie. It happened to my dad, and our family was in absolute shock.

We didn't have the money to hire a lawyer (it wouldn't have worked anyway) or to pay to join the [site's] consumer advocacy program. I still don't understand how this is not blackmail.

It doesn't just affect businesses. One can be listed as a regular person, complete with their home address/phone number. That horrible "no fact-checking" is a problem.
Sue Ziegler, Dallas, Texas

Maybe there oughta be a law: Thanks to Sarah Fenske for pulling the rug out from under the Ripoff Report (at least I hope it will). Those of us who've been victimized by Ed Magedson are in her debt. At least we can refer our detractors to this story as an explanation of why we are telling the truth about ourselves.

The story was good because it showed how he gets away with it. I already knew, of course, because I tried to initiate legal action, to no avail. Maybe a story like this will affect legislative change. I hope so.
Name withheld by request