By Ray Stern
By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
The civil rights that Martin Luther King and others fought so long and hard for are meaningless in the eyes of the current gubernatorial administration.
Everybody talks about how the National Security Agency/CIA violates our civil rights by listening in on our communications. But nobody is talking about Arizona's hidden Holocaust, the destruction of hundreds of good and innocent low-income families by Child Protective Services.
Name withheld by request
Frock ´n´ roll
'Zilla love: I loved your article on NunZilla ("Bad Habits," Niki D'Andrea, April 5). I've been to their shows, and I couldn't have been more entertained even though I almost broke my arm partying. Things always get out of hand, and I love it!
NunZilla is a unique band, and I'm glad that New Times had the good sense to give it the props its members deserve. With cover stories like this one, I may start picking up New Times, or at least reading it regularly on the Internet again.
J.T. Moreno, Tempe
Talking nunsense: Thanks for the article on NunZilla. Finally something my stoner buddies and I can relate to. Getting high and hurling ourselves into other people while music is blasting. And we love the sacrilege of it all. Rock on!
Bill Williamson, Tempe
She knows punk!: Give me a break! I know punk, and NunZilla isn't punk. Total Chaos would crash on my living room floor when they still lived in their mamas' houses. This has no edge. Ergo, is not punk.
Got an idea for a new name (and gimmick) for you guys in NunZilla. Paul Shaeffer and the Housewives. Better fit. Y'all ain't even half sexy enough to pull off NunZilla. And Taryn: Digital Underground called. Humpty Hump wants his nose back.
Corina Perez, Memphis, Tennessee
One for the twirlers: I liked your article, and I own a sign business in California ("Sign Wars," Megan Irwin, March 29). Jim Torgeson is right. I have been to court in other states and won on the First Amendment.
How did Scottsdale come to decide that sign-holders are bad for the city? Did city officials even look into the impact they cause to the city, and is there an impact report or any official documents regarding this matter? Or did someone pay to have this law made? There is your real story.
I hope you see that this could even affect your business soon. Newspaper stands could be deemed an eyesore, too. The city might say they're unsafe because they reside exactly where the sign-holders do on the public sidewalk.
Mike Maioriello, Los Angeles
Protecting aesthetics: It seems very clear to me that Jim Torgeson is interested in one thing and one thing only: the money in his pocket at the end of the day. He has hung his hat on the freedom-of-speech issue in an effort only to further his agenda, which is keeping the beautiful city of Scottsdale littered with signs while lining his own pockets.
Scottsdale has a right to protect its aesthetics perhaps, more than a right but a responsibility to the taxpayers who reside there. And Torgeson doesn't operate only in Scottsdale but spreads his blight throughout other cities in the Valley.
It's interesting the way Torgeson has managed to get his name in the spotlight (gotta get that ego fix, you know), but even more interesting the way he has set up his business. Insulating him from potential liability by hiring people who then hire the sign walkers. All in all, if Torgeson wants to continue with his sign-walking business, let him do it in a city where the laws allow it. Get the message, Torgeson go where you're wanted, or at least tolerated. In Scottsdale, you and your business are intolerable. Hopefully, other cities will adopt the same attitude.
Lance B. Richards, Chandler