Dallas' loss, Arlington's gain: After reading this article, I had to laugh ("Fair-Well," by Richie Whitt, October 13). It exemplifies a complete and utter lack of understanding for how royally Laura Miller has @$%ed Dallas over. UT and OU do not by any means need the Cotton Bowl. That game can be played at the respective schools and draw the same number if not more fans than they do in Dallas. The fact that people try to pawn off a decrepit stadium as classy or chic is laughable. Dallas had the chance to rebuild or massively renovate the stadium and do more than just maintain this rivalry. If Dallas had put up the cash for a new stadium, it would have gained so much that it's unbelievable. The Cowboys would have come back to Dallas, the rivalry would stay and the Cotton Bowl would become a major player in the race for a fifth BCS bowl. That's 10 games for the Cowboys (two pre-season, eight regular), one rivalry and one bowl game. With this, Dallas would now have a stadium capable of hosting the Super Bowl--also, any home playoff games for the Cowboys would come to Dallas. Don't forget that by hosting a BCS bowl, Dallas would have been a guaranteed host of the National Championship once every five years. So, thanks to your hero, Laura Miller, and her arrogance, you get one half-assed bowl game per year instead of 12 real games. But hey, that's what happens when you try to fix something that requires $650 million with $25 million. I think it would be really, really ironic if UT-OU eventually followed the new stadium deal to Arlington.
William Meehan
Allen
G.I. Jerkoff
Phil Haberman speaks: I truly find it AMAZING that you wrote such a one-sided story on a person you know nothing about, yet claim to know everything of ("G.I. Jerk," by Glenna Whitley, September 1). I find it very disturbing that Glenna Whitley spent three days with me here at Fort Bragg, was introduced to several other Special Forces and Special Operations soldiers who verified and validated who I am and then said I was a fake. She was shown formal line of duty statements by the U.S. government showing injury by rocket attack and enemy action, and all of the facts were OMITTED from your slanderous story. No mention of the medical records I showed her were brought forth. The mere fact that she was so pulled in by my soon-to-be ex, who is holding on to the marriage PURELY for the money she receives, says a lot of the quality of the so-called "investigative" abilities of Glenna. She met my case managers and was given a personal tour of Womack Medical Center here as well as the Special Operations Museum at Fort Bragg. And with the 26 voice mails from Kristen that she heard ranging from "I will send you to jail" to "We are drinking Coronas and Tequilas while toasting to your demise," how can you call it fair journalism when NONE of that was mentioned? It is a shame that your newspaper was conned and sucked into one woman's scorn at the fact that her soon-to-be ex doesn't want her in his life after finding out the true leech that she is.
If Glenna was truly thorough, she would have researched the info that I gave her to verify and validate my story instead of the one that she heard third-hand. I feel that you should hear ALL the facts and publish those in lieu of the facts that you selectively published in the first place to aid a woman in her quest to destroy a man who wants nothing more than to have her out of his life. True journalism is publishing BOTH sides of a story and allowing your readers to absorb and dissect ALL FACTS, not just those that favor one party. My question to you and to your readers is simply this: Do you want to know the REAL truth or just what was written to get you a cover story? If you want the REAL truth, ask Glenna. She has it in her notes and memos. I know because I gave it to her firsthand while she was here. I feel that my side needs to be told to show the REAL Phil, not the Phil you decided to slash apart and slander by your one-sided story.
Phil Haberman
U.S. Army
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Editor's note: We stand by our story.
Weed Snobs
Legalize it: What an interesting glimpse into the marijuana-growing underground! ("The Other Farmers Market," by Anonymous, October 13.) While the federal government lays out $20 billion a year to "fight drugs," and the states lay out similar large piles of cash to chase after these plant smokers, there are scores of citizens silently undermining the entire affair. The pertinent questions for society to answer in considering this "problem" are fairly straightforward: First, how does anyone in society have a right to punish another citizen for what they choose to do to themselves, and perhaps of more relevance, how in the world is it considered a "criminal" act to ignite and inhale an intoxicating plant, when neither the act of intoxicating oneself nor that of inhaling plant smoke is in and of itself construed as "illegal?" Combining the acts of inhaling plant smoke and self-intoxication just doesn't strike me as a criminal offense.
It's time to stop pretending that we have the right or any actual reason to be persecuting people who smoke marijuana. Hell, if they can afford to spend $400 an ounce for it, then they seriously can't be the "dregs of society" our government has spent the past several decades portraying them as.
Brian C. Bennett
Barboursville, Virginia
