By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
By Eric Nicholson
The greatest newsmen: I worked with Bert Shipp for years and agree he was one of the greatest newsmen who has worked in this market. The first time I saw his son Brett ("Sail On," February 14) on the air, I called his dad and told him that his son was better than he ever was.
Bert seemed to get a real kick out of that. I know he must be a very proud father.
Biased: I applaud your article on Mr. Shipp and the fake drugs. But it's obvious you're biased against The Dallas Morning News. Every day the DMN has a new angle on the fake drugs.
I don't watch Channel 8. But I saw that Channel 11 had a story on the number of real drug dealers being released because of the fake drugs. Channel 8 missed it. And Channel 4 had an interview with the informant in jail. Where was Mr. Shipp?
Be fair. Maybe Mr. Shipp has been so busy soaking up the national spotlight that his competition is now ahead of the game.
Sordid history: This article ("Eyeball to Eyeball," February 14) is the reason I read the Dallas Observer and the reason I searched and finally found a used copy of Jim Schutze's The Accommodation several years ago. (I had given my copy to someone and lost it--but loved the book.)
Dallas has a history that nobody wants to talk about. Dallas has things happening now that nobody wants to face. The more we face up to what happened and what is happening, the better off our children will be.
Thank you, Jim!
Petty thoughts: In this week's article, Jim Schutze has finally admitted why before the first election every article he wrote was an anti-Laura Miller piece. He states, "Based largely on the Lucano story, I had written some pretty harsh columns about Miller." So Jim is consumed with petty thoughts and his own prejudices like the writers from the other newspapers that he criticizes. He also feels that anyone who doesn't think his way is a racist. "I can't help wondering if these were people waiting to get on the park-and-ride for the Byron Nelson golf tournament." Wake up, Jim--the people going to the golf match are an inconvenience for a few days one week out of the year, not a major traffic problem several days a week every week of the year.
Mayor Jekyll, Mayor Hyde: I am not sure what we are going to get with Laura Miller as mayor. She seems to be all things to all people. To North Dallas, she is the fiscal tightwad who fights against wasteful projects. To Oak Cliff, she is the community activist fighting the entrenched power at City Hall.
She is also viewed as the valiant crusader running a clean grassroots campaign--fighting the dirty tactics of the establishment. She depicts herself as the political outsider, yet at the same time she is married to state Representative Steve Wolens, an influential legislator. He is a major shareholder of Baron & Budd, a major Dallas law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation. She also hired Rob Allyn, who is one of the major political consultants in the city. So, she clearly has connections. There is nothing wrong with that, but it conflicts with the image she tries to present.
She criticized Dunning for running what she calls negative ads. Her Web site has a banner that says she will "stay on the high road." But her Web site also provides links to articles and other Web sites that publish negative information about Dunning. She wanted to have it both ways--whining about Dunning's negative ads while providing negative information through the Internet.
Now that Miller is elected, what are we going to get? Her ads say little more than that she is for filling potholes, raising pay for police and firefighters, and other mom-and-apple-pie things. Any mayor is going to fill potholes. She also neglects to say where the money for police and firefighter raises will come from.
We hear lots from her campaign about potholes and pools, but nothing of Miller's opinion on the Trinity River "signature bridges" or other major issues. What she is doing is smart politics. The more specific things you commit to, the more opponents can criticize you and peel away support. But this is hardly the image that her campaign sought to portray--that Miller is not afraid to speak her mind.
So, some of her supporters are going to be disappointed. They may be voting for an image and not get the anti-establishment rebel that they thought they were going to get. If we don't get the image, what are we going to get?
W. Daniel Hancock
No right answers: The author spent a considerable amount of print space illuminating us with her own knowledge of Goya ("Unenlightened," January 31). If she's read as much about the artist as she would have us assume, she would know there is no definitive answer as to the meaning or intent of the artist regarding these works. Why then is she so critical of the Meadows Museum for not putting forth an interpretation of what many scholars have left unanswered?
Rather than waiting until the last paragraph to mention the rare opportunity to see first-edition prints of these works, she should have said so in her first paragraph, as I doubt too many readers suffered her long lecture to the end.
Why does she not mention the creative setting in which they are presented, at the very least? I do believe she chose to be too harsh in her criticism of the museum, as there is little known explanation for the displayed Goya works.
More than a chick: I have been a fan/friend of Lucy Loves Schroeder ("What's the Story?" February 14) for four years and have read everything written about them. Shannon Sutlief's story is the single best piece I have ever read on them. Thank you so much for writing such a great article.