Feedback from the Issue of Thursday, September 16, 2010


PETA types make Dean sick: Why do people go so crazy over pit bull fighting? If you ask me, the haters of this sport are just a bunch of elitists who don't understand that poor people don't have the money to go to the horse track or to Las Vegas and must find a way to wager within their means.

The whole thing about [NFL quarterback] Michael Vick was about that. Vick grew up poor and was into dogfighting, like the rest of his buddies in the 'hood. What he did was wrong — he went too far — but there are killers of people who got off lighter.

And, for fuck's sake, these are pit bulls! These animals are not exactly nice, cuddly little things. How many times have we read of a pit bull attacking some kid and ripping his face off? Why not just let the buggers rip off each other's faces?

PETA types make me sick! Why don't they start worrying about atrocities against human beings and stop obsessing about dumb animals?
Dean King, Phoenix

Is Jim what you mean about elitist, Dean?: Isn't it ironic how people who fight dogs are all a bunch of stupid rednecks, low-class blacks, or ignorant Mexicans? Looking for a reason to persecute such "people"? Do it because they're unbelievably cruel to animals.
Jim Milton, Phoenix

Don't piss off Sean, people: Wanna get your head kicked right the fuck in? Let me catch you fighting your dog. Not at all a joke. Read the article before you judge me, please. This shit in New Times made me want to cry.
Sean Maple, address unavailable

Cheri's got a violent streak: The owners of these fighting pit bulls should be dismembered one [limb] at a time. That way, they would feel what it's like to eventually die from their wounds, or from starvation.

The one dog in the story that had its lips cut off . . . The owner needs to get his lips removed.

We are supposed to be the top of the food chain and are supposed to be the humane ones. I have no compassion for the animals — people — in the story. I would love to put a bullet in each leg, then each arm, then the feet, the hands, the thighs, the shoulders, 'til they begged me to kill them. Then, I would loom over them and laugh.

Yes I'm sadistic, but when people act like vicious animals themselves, they deserve to get what they've put the animals through.
Cheri Adriana, no address available

Who could possibly call it "sport"?: Great article. I would love to see a similar article on the psychology of those who find this kind of "sport" acceptable. It takes truly sick minds to watch this, much less organize it.

J. Barrett, address unavailable

Is torture really necessary?: Come find me and I will be willing to torture the scumbags who facilitate dogfights. Group in this category people who participate in them — owners, breeders, and whoever has ties to dogfights.
Name withheld

May they be reincarnated as fight dogs: This article was very disturbing. I find it appalling that people find it acceptable to exploit an animal simply for monetary gain and for the lust of blood. It is so sad that an innocent animal is trained to be aggressive with no love given from its master.

I hope these owners are reincarnated as pit bulls and get caught in the tortuous life they've subjected their animals to.
Name withheld

No pit bulls in the home!: Let me start by saying that dogfighting is wrong! And it really sucks that pit bulls get a bad reputation for things like this. But . . .

Pit bulls should not be family dogs! Any pit bull, no matter how it's raised, is going to have some aggression. It is in their nature — they are an aggressive breed.

Uneducated people who have them as family pets need to stop giving out bad information. Any dog can turn on anyone, but pit bulls are just more prone to this because they are bullheaded and stubborn. Learn your breed.
Name withheld


A sadly low approval rate: It's ridiculous how few applications for political asylum are granted to Mexicans wanting to come to this country — especially with the mayhem going on down there these days.

The case that New Times keeps making for comprehensive immigration reform in its "Amongst Us" series is beyond compelling!
Rita Merchant, Phoenix

Grow up, New Times: Immigration law, as a matter of necessity, is about as emotional, as, say, a traffic light. The light is currently red.

There are just so many immigrants, legal and otherwise, that this country can successfully assimilate without becoming a Third World country. [As for] selective exceptions based on human misery, I couldn't tell you where to stop.

There is no inherent legal right for any person in any country to move to the United States and be granted citizenship. This country is not some sort of infinitely expandable wonderland that can magically absorb the rest of [the] world's unhappy throngs, thereby rendering them both rich and enlightened.

Since the frontier disappeared more than 150 years ago, Americans began wrestling with immigration law. And, ironically, if we need a model of what run-amok immigration can do to a country, we have no further to look than our own shining example.

The space we now call America was never empty. That [it was] is the beginning of several national myths involving immigrants.

There were at least 25 million Native Americans here before the whites arrived from Europe. The numbers may have been even more staggering in Central and South America. At any rate, within a few generations, there were [fewer] than a million [4.5 million when the 2000 Census was taken].

How's that for genocide? For holocaust? All courtesy of immigration.

We all look back on our hallowed past as a reason to bust our own borders, but from the beginning, immigration has been a mixed bag.

How about the Irish-led riots in New York City during the Civil War? Immigrant-inspired mayhem toppled civil order in our greatest city and burned a large portion of it to the ground.

Grow up, New Times. Immigration usually creates as many problems as it solves. The emotion that drives your coverage is puerile and destructive.
Larry Boning, address unavailable


No side effects for Steve: I love [spice]. Gets me high, and I don't have to worry about the rabid cops in this right-wing state.

As for the side effects, there haven't been any for me. Sure, real marijuana is better and lasts longer, but I like the freedom to move about, even drive and not have to worry about any legal consequences.
Steve Bryant, Tempe

Cigs and booze are the real problems: It sounds like these are just incredibly high-potency cannabinoids, seeing as their effects are consistent with high intakes of THC.

People have panic attacks and hallucinations because when smoke enough pot, the same thing happens. Does that mean these chemicals are "very dangerous and addictive"? No.

To believe so would make you the same kind of dunce that believed marijuana was incredibly dangerous and addictive. And if you still think [that] after the overwhelmingly large body of evidence stating that marijuana is probably the least dangerous [means of getting high] on Earth, then you should just off yourself.

There are no carcinogens in the synthetic stuff. Carcinogens occur from burning plant matter.

I cannot believe how stupid the general public is. It makes me sick to my stomach that the majority of Americans have disgustingly low IQs and a horrendous ability to just believe whatever they read.

Oh, and as far as pot causing cancer goes . . . Pot has been shown to actually help cancer [patients]. THC has anti-carcinogenic properties and anti-tumor properties (it cuts blood flow to tumors).

Cigarettes and alcohol are the real problems, but no one seems to care.
Name withheld