By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
All the facts that fit the bias: I know Molly Ivins ("Parting Ways," April 19) has distorted facts in the past. In 1989, she wrote a flattering column in the Dallas Times Herald about the Committee In Support of the People of El Salvador (CISPES), portraying them as good folks led by sweet little old nuns just trying to save their country from evil corporate American intervention. However, I had worked on a college campus for two years and had encountered the nasty CISPES folks in person. I did a little research myself and found that they were not at all what they were cracked up to be.
Surveying Molly Ivins' writing, it seems to me that Molly never met a leftist group she didn't sympathize with, nor a conservative group she could tolerate. She's a good word-slinger, but I think she's primarily just another lazy-brained, leftist ideologue.
Van Alstyne, Texas
Pucker up: Your choice for best new act? Never heard of them. I think you guys have lost touch with the local scene (Dallas Observer Music Awards, April 19). And what would you write about if you couldn't kiss One Ton's asses? How about checking out some of the real talent in Dallas? There are great bands here. Check into it.
Bye, y'all: Just wanted to say thank you for all the kind words over the years. I will still be around, though, living three hours south on Interstate 35. My last Dallas show will be May 16 at 8 p.m. at Club Dada. Thanks again.
Terrorists know no peace: Dear Mr. Schutze and everyone at the best damned magazine in Texas (and maybe the world): I am a graduate student at UNT. I have finally found a field where I can be serious and manage a future career: journalism. I must thank you, first, for giving me a magazine with a staff whom I consider role models.
Now, I must thank you for saying what I have said for years to friends who continue so ignorantly to praise and support the worst excuse for an elected or appointed American political official since Louisiana's David Dukes: the infamous Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price ("Dump Bolton," April 12). That he ever got elected is understandable. He is a black man in a predominantly white city where the minorities are under-represented. We needed black representation. So he raised hell. Then he destroyed property. Yet he got re-elected. How? He uses profanity in public, but I would get arrested for the same since I am white and not a political role model. How can a criminal get into office? (OK--an alleged criminal.)
Still, Dallasites should know better. You're a million fools for not fighting him out of office. Get this man out of office before he makes a bigger ass out of the Big D. He is trouble. He is dangerous. His acts repulse me to no end. Mr. Price, have you ever heard of Gandhi? He went against the system and did so peacefully.
However, terrorists know no peace. As for Chief Bolton, like those before him, he allows Price to do the things and say the things Price does, and he is no better. Get him out of his high chair. As for Laura Miller, let her be mad. The Observer has the right to print the truth. She'll have to get over it. Her husband, if he is a lawyer--one of the few professions less trusted than journalists--is no Bambi either. Shame on The Dallas Morning News for its biased non-printing of the truth. Cheers to the Observer!
I don't write anonymous letters, by the way.
Most judges should be so diligent: It is surprising to learn that the "fallout" from readers concerning the unethical practices of Fred Baron's law firm ("Homefryin' with Fred Baron," March 29) has, instead, focused on Judge John Marshall. The attack dog in question is a lawyer individual, Mr. Robert J. (Bob) Reagan (Letters, April 19).
Seemingly unfazed at the Dallas Observer's report of [alleged] corruption in the Baron & Budd law firm, Mr. Reagan directs his attacks toward Judge Marshall, whom he accuses of being recusal-prone, lacking in judicial demeanor and, of all things, being a judge who actually rules from the bench instead of taking matters under advisement as Mr. Reagan complains he should.
Plainly, Mr. Reagan's analysis is backward. When a biased judge is visited with a recusal motion, he fights to stay on the case. Instead, Judge Marshall's typical reaction was to sign a recusal order. Why? Because Judge Marshall had no interest in any individual case. Judge Marshall's demeanor was also to Mr. Reagan's dislike. That's too bad--although Mr. Reagan is entitled to his opinion.
But what really puzzled me about Mr. Reagan's diatribe was his complaint that Judge Marshall would hear arguments on summary judgment and then rule. This is because, on many occasions, I have spotted Judge Marshall at the SMU law library late at night doing legal research. Obviously, Judge Marshall was preparing to consider the cases before him. So, having studied the law, Judge Marshall was prepared to rule. Most judges should be so diligent. Most judges take cases under advisement because, by the time of the hearing, they haven't even bothered to read the pleadings. Again, Mr. Reagan has it backward.
Judge Marshall's mention in the Observer story was due to the fact that, once corruption was uncovered in a case before him, he referred such facts to the criminal authorities. For this act, Judge Marshall should be commended and given credit for his patriotic response.
Richard E. Finlan