By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
I hope to read that Ms. Crenshaw and the other abusers have been seriously taken to task by the taxpayers. Maybe it will be the impetus needed to finally "clean house" downtown.
Keep up your excellent work, Ms. Miller. Dallas wouldn't be the same without you and the Observer.
I was thinking to myself many times in the last year or so, can a policeman drive a patrol car without a cell phone stuck in his ear?
After reading Laura Miller's "Who ya gonna call?" I find that the police are not the only people who drive around the city breaking their boredom at the taxpayers' expense. The fact that we cannot find out who the police and fire department are talking to is the main reason to ask. Is it possible that these people are "doing investigations" every minute they are in their patrol cars? At the very least, I would like to know how much that cell time costs.
Rookie of the year
Thank you for publishing a great article on Jason Kidd ["The Kidd," March 30] and his personal side. His character has been defined too much by one or two incidents. None of us would like our lives to be judged this way.
At the risk of being a hypocrite, I will judge Jason by an "incident" that I saw. Three days before I read your article, I pulled up behind Jason in a fast-food restaurant's drive-through lane. I thought there might be a celebrity in the Mercedes with California tags. Soon, I saw the driver of the truck in front of Jason send his son back for an autograph. Then, one of the restaurant workers came out for an autograph.
On his way back into the store, he looked at me with a huge grin, and said, "That's Jason Kidd." Jason graciously complied with their requests, making the days of each of these fans. This is the Jason Kidd that I will think of in the future.
You, me, and meat
I would like to comment on the Department of Labor's dispute with Cabaret Royale ["Feds win case against Cabaret Royale," April 6].
Since there is such a large amount of money involved on both sides of the issue (dancers and owners), it annoys me that the Department of Labor is jumping on the owners and totally disregarding the blatant illegal tax evasion that dancers practice. These girls make large amounts of cash every night, sometimes thousands of dollars. Of this hard, cold cash, how much do these "entertainers" claim when tax time comes around? From discussing this with several "chicks" of the trade I discovered that almost none of this "tit" money is ever claimed. One girl I spoke with was even able to collect food stamps while raking in, on average, $250 a night. I despise paying the government as much as anyone else, but this million-dollar industry has a definite impact on our society, economically as well as ethically.
These so-called "entertainers" show up at a venue provided for them to sell their bodies. Should they be allowed to get minimum wage for giggling and shoving their breasts in men's faces? Real entertainers like bands and stand-up comics are paid according to how many people show up and pay cover, or how well drink sales were for the evening. Titty bars do not charge a cover. Men show up specifically to shove cash in some girl named Bubbles' crotch.
And how about the "sophisticated" businessmen? These are the guys that go to these places three or four times a week for "business" lunches and use the tables as a tax write-off. Does the Department of Labor consider that wrong? Is cash for tits considered a business expense?
The whole industry is depressingly brainless. If this crap did not have a direct effect on myself and society, then I might keep my mouth shut. As long as there are women that will sell themselves like meat, there will always be a problem of us being treated like it (meat).