By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
We mutually lament the forced departure of the Molly Ivins column from your pages ["'A little bit of revenge,'" February 22], but for very different reasons. I read Molly because good intelligence-gathering demands knowledge of what the enemy is thinking. Second, her diatribes are relentlessly funny to anyone with a lick of sense.
As to your concern about finding a replacement for her leftist hatemongering, that should not pose a large problem once the parameters are defined. Do you want a local wacko or a nationally known wacko? Locally, I can think of several, some of whom are city and county officials.
Nationally, the opportunities abound. If you get in a real bind, you could publish Hillary's weekly drivel, but might have to work out a deal with North Dallas People, whose free circulation policy coincides with yours.
I haven't noticed the bumbling Belo paper (it's the rising price of newsprint, y'know) offering Michael Kinsley or Alex Cockburn, but you may find them a bit tame. Neither Eleanor Clift nor Louis Farrakhan are published locally, so you might consider them. An even better idea is an alternating series between either Al Sharpton or Major Owens and David Duke unless, of course, that page is considered female-safe, in which case you ought to go with Clift and her disarmingly righteous wrongness.
Your restaurant reviews are without peer and good ole Joe Bob is still good ole Joe Bob. Keep up the highly entertaining work. Nonsense has its own value.
Now that Molly Ivins has received a well-deserved abrupt dismissal, the Observer should replace her with a real journalist. Please don't inflict upon the citizens of Dallas an Ivins clone.
Speak of the devil
In response to your article on Ed Zabel ["Dealing with the devil," February 15], I would just like to ask: Since when was God a porno freak? It's getting really old to see people pervert and degrade religion to justify self-indulgent behavior, or in this case harmful behavior.
The Bible says that you have to burn the entrails of meat on an altar to God when you eat meat; it says a lot of weird things. Zabel, like so many cafeteria Christians (take what you want, leave what you don't like), is abusing the Bible to get what he wants, and disregarding a rational and intelligent approach to interpreting or reviewing the Bible's meaning in social and historical context.
Zabel does his work for one and only one reason--a selfish one--because he derives pleasure from seeing women hurt, and that's anything but spiritual. I think Jesus would be sick.
Hate and hypocrisy
In a recent "Letters" column [February 8], Troy Felder spat venom at the Observer for the article regarding the reassignment of gay journalist Todd Camp because the article "ridiculed Christians who are putting God's words into actions." Despite the fact that Christians disagree on the interpretation and application of "God's words" as far as gays and lesbians are concerned, the reassignment of Todd Camp did not seem to be because of some Christian awakening on the part of his editor but because of intimidation by persistent extremists. That's not Christianity--that's an ironic example of what the right wing has historically referred to as "political correctness."
To dislike gays is personal, and to discriminate against gays is unfortunately all too legal, but to claim religious justification for reassigning a journalist from a kid's beat for making a cautionary joke about pederasty in an unrelated publication is plainly absurd.
For the Star-Telegram to manage its affairs according to so-called religious interests while claiming to be a nonsectarian paper is also hypocritical. In that respect, though, I can see why Troy Felder, a Christian obviously full of hate, would defend the S-T's decision; after all, hatred and Christianity together continue to be one of the most frequent demonstrations of hypocrisy.
Ellen K. Fulton
No pity for panhandlers
Pardon me while a well-formed tear gets wiped away. Now, check me if I'm wrong about your "Buzz" article from February 8 ["Deep Mall-um"]. As I interpret it, the signs discouraging panhandlers are wrong, and money should be given to panhandlers to encourage dependence on society rather than to shelters, social programs, food banks, etc. that encourage or try to build some appearance of independence.