By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
MossEisley: So let me get this straight, the mainstream music industry has its eye on a good young band built around a young happy family ("The Force Is With Them," by Zac Crain, January 30), something extraordinarily special and extraordinarily rare? Sigh. I'm not saying this is going to end badly, but the situation sure seems delicate. They moved from the big city to the country to get away from the "concrete jungle," opened a coffee shop and started a diverse "indie scene" in small-town Tyler, incredible. I just hope this story doesn't end with MossEisley back in the concrete jungle broken and forgotten, searching for directions back to Tyler.
Oh and nice work, Zac Crain, I couldn't put it down.
A Paper to Cuss At
A Mong and a mission: Bravo! Great stuff about a good guy and a near-impossible job ("Snooze Alarm," by Eric Celeste, February 13). We (and we know you, too) are rooting for Bob Mong and his mission. We want a newspaper to read, cuss at, turn to and sometimes be proud of. Well done.
Society rag: Thank you, thank you for stating in print what most Dallasites have thought--and said--for ages. The Dallas Morning News is little more than a society rag pandering to the old and nouveau rich who are ruining North Texas.
The sidebar on the five things Bob Mong should do is dead-on--especially No. 3. Hicks and Perot Jr. are obvious choices for investigative journalism, but most in the city don't realize the control UT Southwestern Medical Center exercises over its image. Kern Wildenthal runs that place like his own private corporation and seems to answer to no one--certainly not his faculty or employees, and not the UT system or the state of Texas.
So bravo, Mr. Celeste and Dallas Observer. Now let's see if Mong really has the brass to put Dallas' money where his mouth is.
Name in Vain
Christian-bashing: Shameful is the only word I can say for your review of the movie Gods and Generals. Jean Oppenheimer's review ("Killing in the Name of...," February 20) was awful. Obviously she has an ax to grind with anything Christian. She could not effectively review this film because of her bias. I would hope that Oppenheimer could in some way, in the future, show her expertise in a better manner without showing what she truly believes. Is this not what every reviewer should do? I am sorry that she felt the need to bash Christians and miss so many good elements in the movie.
Yes to Parks
We're taking back our parks: Samuell Farm ("Farm Teams," by Charles Siderius, February 6) a park in perpetuity? Are you kidding? Dallas can't even keep parks with the word "park" in their names as parks. In a recent conversation I had with one city park director, I was told that our parks are overrun with soccer fields because the city failed to acquire the land needed for the fields in the past decades. Instead they turned our parks into litter- and beer-bottle-strewn grassless areas for weekend-long tournaments. The traffic, trash and noise that accompany soccer games are a nuisance to all who live in the neighborhood, yet the city has hidden funds that would help relocate fields to non-park land in the newly proposed bonds slated for the May 3 election. We must make the city either acquire the appropriate space for soccer fields or get out of the business of providing fields for leagues to play. Tell Dallas that we want our parks back! Vote YES for parks in the coming election.
Rolling in his grave: It is an outrage that the city of Dallas is even considering turning Samuell Farm into soccer fields. There is nothing of beauty or lasting social value to soccer fields. Many citizens do not use soccer fields and will derive absolutely no benefit from the bequest from Dr. Samuell.
The proposal to preserve some of the beauty of Samuell Farm is to the city of Dallas citizens' benefit.
Paula A. Loftis
Big, Messy Tent
Diversity and peace: In his dismissal of the Dallas peace movement ("Get on the Bus," February 6), Mark Donald would disparage the expression of anti-war sentiment because it rises from a diverse coalition.
Let's widen the question to the real issue in America today: alarm and dismay at the overall conduct of the Bush/Cheney administration. Who stands at the core of the political opposition? Union workers? Women? Homosexuals? Minorities? Muslims? Minimum wage-earners? Families relying on public education? Environmentalists? Peace activists? Poor people? Investors on the ropes? Illegally disenfranchised voters? Civil libertarians and other supporters of constitutional rights? Rank-and-file Democrats?
I could go on, but you get my point. All these groups participate in the clamor. Yet Mr. Donald's article would imply that there is no sense in opposing Bush/Cheney, since those resisting the regime do so for a variety of reasons.
I disagree. The Vietnam anti-war movement was also a big tent and a fractious mess. But it achieved its aim.