LETTERS

I have been reading the film reviews in your magazine for years now, but that will soon change. You've now officially sunk to the level of your competition. Some of your writers feel that film critique is an exercise in pedantry. Perhaps trying to justify to themselves and others that their college education did not go unused. Or, like Mr. Carter's review of Elephant, which was just simply juvenile.

Either some of your writers are not smart enough in the subject of film or they are afraid to conflict with the hierarchy of film critics. I realize film is a subjective medium. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. However, the job of any critic is to point out the flaws and strengths of his subject and ultimately come to a decision. You either recommend it or you do not! Indecisiveness and mediocrity should not be accepted, and I think the city of Las Vegas deserves better.

Editor's note:
"Afraid to conflict with the hierarchy of film critics"? Name another publication in America that gave Spy Kids 3-D four stars. That took a 10-gallon scrotum, Chad. But we also allow our reviewers to occasionally violate the thumbs-up/thumbs-down mentality that has reduced arts criticism to the level of a check-off list.

As Guilty White Liberals, We're Duly Chastened

You guys aware of your own insidious racism, and that which exists rampantly in Las Vegas? While it may be commendable that the Weekly devoted a cover story to African-American community leaders, look throughout the rest of the issue and among the scores of happy-go-lucky swingers and partiers in the many advertisements for casino nightclubs. I counted exactly two black faces.

And You're From Oregon? You Don't Say ...

Contributing editor Steve Bornfeld received this letter in response to his December 18 feature about walking in Las Vegas:

I am a "walkaholic." It is as much a part of me as being a vegetarian, a naturalist and yogini, among other things. And I'm thinking about relocating to, I dunno, Spring Valley—never been there, only on the Web. I live in a great small town in Oregon, Ashland, ever hear of it?  Anyway, I make a unique product, soywax/beeswax candles, which have been greatly recieved here and in the Bay Area, and I "do astrology" among many other great creative and businessy things, and my astrological lines are best in Las Vegas. After living in this gorgeous—but hard to make a living in, and not to mention boring—great little town of Ashland, Oregon, I've been having to consider relocating. And I've had to evaluate my most important needs as a human being, as well as a person needing to build an empire. Big need number one: livability ... and for me, one of the factors is walking, and that's what brought me to your page, and, well, I just want to say I really enjoyed your observances and humor and the tour of the neighborhood. Thank you, and keep on walkin'.  

Maybe They Meant to Honor Jimmy Buffet, Inventor of the Smorgasbord in 1875

In your January 8 feature article about street names, if the person who dubbed the thoroughfare "Jimmy Buffet Street" was doing it to honor (or demean) Mr. Margaritaville and his Parrothead fans, they did a great disservice. The songwriter/singer/guitar player spells his last name BUFFETT, not Buffet. BUFFETT is "Cheeseburgers In Paradise" while BUFFET is fruit salad, prime rib, bread pudding and everything else (usually no margaritas) they can cram under a sneeze guard in a dining establishment.

Mister, You Thought Right!

I've been in Vegas about 21 years. I read your article about the streets. I'm wondering if you're aware that the reason Duke Ellington Way has that particular name is because the building that's across from the San Remo on the corner of Tropicana was the original musician's union hall. When they built it, and they put the street through, they gave them the option of naming it, and so that's the name they chose, Duke Ellington Way, because of his association with music and musicians in Vegas. Just thought you might find that interesting.

We Open Martin Stein's Mail!

The following recently arrived from the zany house guest described by Martin Stein (As We See It, January 8). Along with a thank-you card for the stay was a pair of robin's-egg blue Spongebob Squarepants panties and a similarily colored plastic rucksack imprinted with the silouhette of a Scottish terrier and the word "Agatha," all squeezed into a regular-sized envelope. (The Steins' bathroom has a Spongebob theme, Martin unabashedly explains, but they have yet to get a dog.)

Dear Biana and Martin: I am writing you from a stinky Mission bus. My sister and I were accused of stealing at Mervy's, where I bought these cute undies. I'm trying to get legal advice about the incident. Of course, we were proven innocent in the end by strip search. The lady who did it said she might enjoy this more if she was a lesbian. Hahaha! Anyways, thank you for your generous hospitality. I hope I wasn't too much of a pain.

P.S. The bag is for your new dog.

If You Think $1 Trillion Is Too Enormous to Contemplate, You Haven't Seen the Weekly's Tab at Fado

Is there anything in the world that is worthwhile that the Bush administration will not attempt to destroy? Under the guise of putting men on the moon and Mars, at a cost of $1 trillion (a sum too enormous to contemplate), Bush says existing funding will be "relocated." In Bush terminology, this means shifting funding from functioning, successful programs to administration-friendly corporations. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, with the only successful, cost-effective space program in recent years, looks like the loser—their funding will probably be "reallocated." To whom, you ask? Bush contributors Rockwell, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing spring to mind, as spectacular failures in the space program, despite receiving generous taxpayer funding (think Challenger, etc.).

Nothing more can be learned by studying astronauts at huge, unaffordable expense and great risk that cannot be learned using robotics. We should continue on a course that is tried and tested, and relatively affordable.

The pipe dreams and grandiose illusions of Mr. Bush have already cost us more than we or our children and grandchildren can afford, resulting only in the destruction of jobs, social programs, clean air and water, international goodwill, security and hope for the future. Congress should refuse to fund this new boondoggle.

Editor's note:
We, for one, have complete faith that Congress will refuse to fund a boondoggle.