By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
Gramps, just get over it: Sorry, Jim, I'm going to have to break a little tradition I have and disagree with the spirit of your latest article ("SMU's Shame," by Jim Schutze, March 16). Sure, SMU was operating on the shady side when they systematically subverted the University Gardens tenants--and their original intentions were no doubt impure, but let's look at the bigger picture here. G.W. aside (I am no fan), SMU is the only university of repute here in Dallas (I am no alum), and I applaud any legal means SMU partakes in to expand and improve its educational facilities. A large presidential library would be an amazing boon to our city--and, as a reader of your own articles, this library would be a grand improvement over our downtown public library ("The Poop," anyone?). Don't use Bush's name and SMU's shrewd (though legal) tactics to taint and obscure a rare golden opportunity to bolster Dallas' educational resources. It's not like SMU took over the elderly tenants' condos to build a parking lot or another frat house--grandma and grandpa need to learn that long after they're gone, great minds would be studying at Dallas' most prestigious library to date.
Take it slow and easy: SMU might be well advised to proceed carefully on the presidential library. The fat lady is yet to sing, and based on the current trend, perhaps another day and another presidential namesake could better serve my alma mater.
David L. Florence
Class of '55
Perfect man: I couldn't disagree with Jim Schutze more. He writes: "I'm not saying SMU broke the law. But I am saying the way SMU took this land was ethically filthy. And I wonder why now on this ugly foundation we should want to see a monument to George W. Bush."
Sounds like the perfect place for this president's library.
Chill out, world of love: I'm a 25-year-old massage therapist and an indigo kid ("Little Boy Blue," by Jesse Hyde, March 9). My aunt got into the New Age several years ago and heard about the indigo movement. Sadly, it was years too late to do me much good. I wish they'd had a word for it back when I was in grade school.
Now for a bit of demystifying: I hope you don't mind. I've never met anyone who could read a mind like a book, and I know several other indigos. We're pretty normal as adults, no bending of spoons or anything. And we all have some similar goals, but this article seems to make it out like we're going to defeat hatred and civil unrest with amazing feats of science fiction. We're quieter than that, although it would be pretty cool.
Our revolution is a personal one. And it's been happening for some time, even before the '80s. It's just taken awhile for anyone to notice, because grade-school classes are getting more crowded, and it's harder for us to deal. We all try to make the world better, starting with our immediate area and the people around us.We want people to feel safe and to chill out. We're not here to usher in a world of love, because that world is already here. We're here to erode the barriers between people that keep them isolated and afraid. When we do that, more people will manage to see through the hype and the archaic secular views to the world as it really is. And it's not without its pain, but it is a much cooler and brighter place than is generally thought.
Good work on the article, and stay open.
Conversations With God: I'm the pastor of a church and probably shouldn't even be reading this rag, much less the article skewering Scott Stapp ("Jesus Freak," March 9). Yet, I gotta give it to Noah Bailey, the Stapp shtick was a really funny piece. I know a few people whom God might have a similar conversation with, like me a few times.
The indigo kid article reminded me of headlines I've seen on the cover of those tabloids like Weekly World News. Funny, I guess, in a disturbing sort of way. However, labeling and/or treating your misbehaving brat like a member of some evolved messianic race instead of applying sound behavioral management is just really well-packaged bad parenting.
Generation Suck: I guess if your parents insist on giving you a common name with such a creative spelling (Jaired Conrad), how could you not choose such creative names for your own children (Dusk and Day)? And with such creative names as Dusk and Day, I guess your children would surely have to be "special," wouldn't they? Puke. As a 36-year-old man, I think my generation absolutely sucks ASS at parenting. Am I the only one my age who thinks saying "no" to your children is OK? Some firm guidelines and good old-fashioned discipline would find this world with a whole bunch less "indigos." We're doing this planet a disservice by allowing kids to lead themselves in whichever direction they choose. Perhaps some--very few--of these kids are legitimate, but for the majority, parents are just making excuses for their imperfect, unruly yet adorable little spawn. My generation doesn't have a letter or a symbol designation (Gen. X, Y, etc.), but I'm going to name us Generation Zero cause we SUCK at raising kids. Hippies should never have been allowed to reproduce.