LETTERS

Last week, a quartet of writers penned their memories of the Reagan era. They weren't sufficiently reverential for this reader:

The week-long tribute to the 40th President Ronald Reagan bore truth to the fact that most Americans were grieved by the loss of a U.S. hero. In keeping with the Weekly's tradition of journalistic slime, the commentary on Reagan was, as all the articles are, juvenile, badly written, crude, insulting and just plain dumb. Even in death, the Weekly attempts one last putdown for a former president they still have contempt for.

A two-term president deserves homage. You "writers" have no respect for the office of the presidency and, ultimately, no respect for the country you live in.

No class.

Editor's note:
Hey, Vince, I got yer "no class" right he—oh, never mind. Let's just say this: Equating citizenship with reflexive respect for the presidency is so you, Vince. See you at the next Friends of the Patriot Act meeting! As far as we're concerned, the rest of the media did an ample job of respectfully covering Reagan's death.

While looking for information about Michael Moore's upcoming movie Fahrenheit 9/11 on the Internet, I was directed to a site called MoveAmericaForward. The purpose of the site was to attack Moore by urging people to phone, send e-mails and letters to persuade theater owners to refuse to show the movie. WHOSIS, a searchable database, revealed that a GOP consultation firm, Russo Marsh & Rogers, set up MoveAmericaForward. A short time later, the name of the Russo firm was "disappeared" from WHOSIS—they obviously don't want publicity about their smear campaign.

The Republicans must really be desperate when they have to hire a public-relations firm to try to prevent the public from viewing a movie. Perhaps they are afraid that people who have only seen or read government-approved "news" about the Bush administration will now discover the truth.

The cover image for last week's story "10 Things We Dare You to Eat"—the notoriously smelly durian fruit—prompted this response:

I lived in Southeast Asia for two years and have seen many "No Durian" signs in hotels in Cambodia and Thailand (usually a picture of the fruit with the red circle and slash around it). I was told that this was actually a euphemism for "No Hookers."

Editor's note:
So, don't you hate it when you're in Thailand and you spend a bundle on durian, and the next thing you know, you wake up in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney? That's what makes the durian such a nasty fruit. Beware!

The following is a back-and-forth between a letter-writer and Weekly editor Scott Dickensheets. The writer e-mailed to complain about the Downtown mural painted by the artist Dray (see our As We See It story in the June 3 issue and a Gray Matters follow-up June 17). He or she would only consent to having his or her comments published if the entire exchange was reproduced.

I have not seen this mural, and really, I care not to see it or condone it. I don't understand why the media continues to glorify graffiti taggers. What I really don't understand is how a police officer would applaud it and thank them. What about the innocent kids that have no choice and are forced to view it? Aren't they graffiti artists, anyway? Don't graffiti artists vandalize? Shouldn't that officer had done some kind of investigation or something? You people don't realize the real damage that is being done by constantly approving what they do by writing articles about them. I hope someone wakes up soon before Las Vegas starts looking like the Bronx. I would prefer this letter not be published. And I hope someone wakes up soon!

Scott Dickensheets replies:
You say you have not seen the mural and don't wish to condone it. But how can you condemn it without seeing it? It's not graffiti; it's done in a style based somewhat on graffiti. It's on the side of the artist's house, not tagged on some random wall. "What about the innocent kids who are forced to view it?" you ask. That's a good question, but not so simple a one as you make it seem. Sure, children should be protected, but at the same time, we can't bland out our culture to be acceptable to innocent children. And I say this as a father of three sons. I've spent more time than most parents screening the music, movies and TV they consume, so I'm not some cavalier parent who doesn't care what his children see. But I hate the idea of "innocent children" being the standard of what's acceptable.

All that said, I do wish you'd let the Weekly print your letter; it probably speaks for a lot of people. I won't give it a mocking headline or stick a silly editor's note after it. If you'd prefer even more anonymity, we can sign it "A Reader."

MZ replies: There is a difference between wanting culture in Las Vegas and being responsible. The act of putting a mural of a naked woman in front of a school bus stop is not responsible! Or this Dray person just doesn't care. It seems as if he is getting recognition at anyone's expense. Including children. OK, Mr. "Father of Three Sons," I would hate to see what your standard of acceptance is. I am very curious to see how many people would want that mural gone. Why hasn't the city done anything about this? What happens when murals like this are painted all over the city? The best time to end something potentially harmful to our youth is in the beginning stages. Not when it gets out of hand. Or when it's in front of a church or school. Even News 13 only showed the face of the woman in the mural. That says enough right there. I probably would not have a problem with this if it was in a gallery. And there was a choice to view it or not. Maybe that is why the mural is on his studio. I'm sure you would not see his work in Bellagio. Instead, he is on Casino and Colorado (where all of the high rollers and art collectors buy art). I will agree to let you print this if I'm not edited. I know how the media can manipulate things. And also if "your" e-mail is mentioned. So that readers can get a clear understanding of my concerns.