About damn time somebody addressed Lee Hancock's tactics ("Let's talk about sects," April 27). I was a reporter for the Beaumont paper at the time of Byrd's dragging death. I covered his murder from the time it happened until the beginning of the second trial, which is when I took a new job.
The Beaumont Enterprise is the closest daily Jasper has. It's shitty enough to wake up in the morning and discover Lee Hancock whupped the bejesus out of you--especially when you're the local reporter who thought you had a damned good rapport with your sources. It's a far worse feeling to find out how she did it. I, too, witnessed what Mike Lout and others described. And like them, I was appalled.
The turkey legs, the whiskey, the flowers, all the promises (some she made good on, others she didn't)...all true. I know. I was there.
As for Ronald King, I spoke with him frequently. The conversations were quite enlightening. What's most sad is that I still don't think he realizes just how badly she used him.
The little incident with Barry [Shlachter], well, that pretty much speaks for itself. No one was terribly surprised.
The true shame is that Lee is damned good at what she does. I mean that both ethically and unethically speaking.
Thanks for printing what a lot of us have been thinking for a long, long time.
I have been for years--and will continue to be--a huge supporter of the Dallas Observer. However, I must take exception to your characterization of Clarice Tinsley as "humorless" in the Kevin McCarthy piece ("Last call," May 11). I feel she is unfairly vilified in the article. After you cleverly gloss over Kevin's (who I am a big fan of) drinking, carousing, and other irresponsible behavior with a boys-will-be-boys wink, Clarice is portrayed as overly sensitive. Let us remember that she was the hapless victim--who couldn't swim and did not like the water--who was thrown in the pool against her will by two "grown" men. Furthermore, Clarice has never been linked to any type of scandal. For Kevin, however, this was the final straw in a long line of childish antics.
Thank you for the fine article about Kevin McCarthy. I have been listening to KLIF-AM 570 (no, I still can't call it Big 570) since 1993. I have been listening through all the changes since then, including the "hot, hip, and happening" spree, the alternate sports/talk stint, and the current blow-up and rebuild. The one constant was always Kevin McCarthy. Kevin's style of humor, inquiring mind, and confidence to go boldly where others had no business going are what have kept many listeners tuning in.
Prior to his health problems, his on-air staff meetings with Connie Enriquez Herrera and Donovan Lewis--plus his ongoing repartee with them during the show--were truly some of the best moments on the radio.
Unfortunately, the station has taken a turn that I believe it won't recover from even when Kevin returns. The changes the management had made to Kevin's show before his health problems essentially cut the legs out from under his show. This is evidenced by the regular callers that are not calling in now.
Again, thank you for the piece on Kevin. We loyal Kevin listeners do miss him and look forward to when we might hear him on the air again.
I share the loss of Kevin McCarthy's show. His interviews with celebrities; his banter with Connie (his producer) and Donnie (his board op); his handling of local, state, and national events; his style with the callers and the general easy talk that made you want to call to express your opinions and made you laugh.
I also miss the movie critic Gary Cogill--he gave us a movie critique that either made you want to see the show or saved you the ticket price.
The changes at KLIF have been rough. Change is sometimes bad. Hopefully, Kevin can right the ship and make the listeners return.
Concerning Jonathan Fox's "Epistle to the Jews" (May 4): In a society like ours, committed to the free competition of ideas, there seems to be something unseemly in the rabbis' objections to efforts by the Southern Baptists to win Jewish converts. To be in America is to be confronted with a vast variety of religious choices. We have access to a spiritual bazaar where everyone from Pope John Paul II to D.T. Suzuki pitches his point of view in the hope of gaining adherents. That is where the future lies, not in some demand for exceptional treatment--which suggests an inability to cope--but in the toe-to-toe of critical evaluation, disputation, and dialogue. Those who waver will gravitate to other faiths where they feel more at home. The true believers will remain with whatever tradition attracts them, and that tradition will be purified and strengthened. Good competition is a wonderful thing. Rather than objecting to him, the rabbis should thank Jim Sibley.
Jonathan Fox's article "Epistle to the Jews," which showcases the Southern Baptist evangelist the Rev. Jim Sibley, is severely plagued with subjectivity and one-sidedness. One reads with astonishment as you indulge both Mr. Sibley and his Messianic allies with long tangents screaming with flawed logic and blatant misinformation.
There is a very misleading implication throughout your article that suggests to the reader that perhaps the only reason Mr. Sibley and his fellow crusaders should abandon their endeavor is out of sympathy for the Jews, and never entertains that fact that his interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures is just plain wrong.
Don't for a second think that I am trying to minimize this point. For nearly 2,000 years, Jews have suffered the humiliation, terror, and bloodshed which has resulted from Christian "love" for their Jewish neighbors. From the mountainous volumes of accounts of Christian anti-Semitism, one need only review the most horrific examples, such as the crusades, the expulsions from Spain and Portugal, the Inquisition, the pogroms of Eastern Europe, and finally the Holocaust to realize this point.
However, you completely let Mr. Sibley off the hook by not challenging the basic tenets of his crusade. That is an interesting point, since he takes no pause or feels no guilt in doing so to the Jews.
Also, the article completely ignores more than 3,000 years of Jewish scholarship. You claim that Mr. Sibley is a "formidable adversary," but you fail to match him up against the proper Jewish authorities. It is simply unconscionable that you could publish an article on this subject without even mentioning the chief Jewish voices against these activities!
Of course, you did include the radical comments of the highly controversial and much ostracized Rabbi [Daniel] Lapin. Yet you didn't even get that right. By stating that the United States should be a more Christian nation, he is not saying that the "more" includes converted Jews. Actually, what Rabbi Lapin preaches is that "liberal secularism" is the nemesis of our nation and is assimilating and demoralizing both Christians and Jews alike at a very alarming rate. What he is advocating is a return to religious fundamentalism of both our respective faiths, not the mass conversion of Jews.
A much more appropriate rabbi to reference would have been Rabbi Tovia Singer of "Jewish Outreach." In fact, he was just recently in Dallas visiting the very congregation that had to delay a boy's bar mitzvah due to a conversion attempt. Or how about "Jews for Judaism?" Did you contact them? If you had, they could have easily explained to you the error in Mr. Sibley's interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures.
In fact, they would have been quick to point out the fact that not one reference was taken from the Hebrew Scriptures--the actual source of all Messianic prophecy. They could further explain that according to Hebrew Scripture, Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly be the Messiah--because he was not victorious over Israel's oppressor, Rome; he was not from the House of David (Jewish lineage is traced through the biological father, yet the Gospels state that Joseph was not his father); he did not bring about world peace nor end human suffering; he did not succeed in bringing about universal recognition and worship of the one true G-d. Furthermore, you perhaps could have also mentioned the fact that atonement for our sins, and thus salvation (which is what Mr. Sibley claims he is fighting for), is not dependent on a blood sacrifice (as Christians claim), especially human sacrifice (which is strictly and clearly forbidden). Rather, there are two other methods of atonement which G-d actually states are preferred to ritual sacrifice: heartfelt repentance through prayer, and charity. All of this can be found in the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures, and yet not once did you mention it.
In conclusion, Jim Sibley is aiming at the wrong target, much like the misguided Ku Klux Klan member who fired the shots at Congregation Baruch Ha Shem. The nation that stood directly before G-d at Mount Sinai and received his law and covenant does not need to be saved. They are not the ones spreading hatred among their neighbors. You need to save you own soul, Mr. Sibley!
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
I was appalled to learn of the actions of our city council and specifically the Dallas park board, as revealed in Jim Schutze's article "The shallow end" (April 27). I find it inconceivable that these people, who claim to serve the public good, feel at liberty to conduct themselves in this manner! It is embarrassing to think that our city government is managed by such petty little egocentric dictators. While I do not live in southern Dallas, I can certainly appreciate what this facility must have meant to the people in this neighborhood. How ridiculous that these people would find it necessary to deprive this neighborhood of this amenity when corpo
how capitalism should work. I, too, think it would be a great idea that those involved in that decision should personally tell the people of this area why they felt it necessary to take such action. It is no wonder that so many lower-income Americans feel disenfranchised. Absolutely shameful!