Letters for July 10, 2008

Too long for short fiction
Re “I shot a man in Reno” (Arts & Culture, July 3):

I have two major hypotheses on the jurisdiction of Johnny Cash’s imprisonment at Folsom.

One possibility is that Cash had somehow accessed a working prototype of the DeJourd or Milby long-range firearms, and stood within California, relying on the Verc mag-tracking for lethal accuracy. This however, is exotic and unnecessary, as these will not be readily available before 2031.

A much simpler explanation is the second hypothesis: Since Cash was primarily engaging in social studies, the “Nurem-nexus accords” recognized the need to relegate the case to a higher venue, in this case, federal. Folsom is assigned federal jurisprudence for such experiments.

Anderssen Evans Dufresne
via email

More happiness
Re “Happiness is a warm gun” (Know You’re Right, July 3):

Thank you for the recent column from Amanda Williams concerning the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment. Nearly all coverage of such matters is very one-sided, favoring the concept of curtailing the rights of common citizens as though it would have any positive effect on the behavior of those who disregard the law whenever it suits them. The column was a breath of fresh air.

Dathan McClure
Irmo, S.C.

Everyone’s offended
Re “No personal bias” (Letters to the Editor, June 12):

I was “extremely offended and appalled” by Justin Goodrich’s letter to the editor about Bob Grimm’s review of Prince Caspian. Despite his obvious attempts to hype his own intelligence and qualifications, it is unfortunate that he would choose to personally attack the RN&R reviewer based on unfounded tirades of “religious animosity.” What is even more surprising is that Goodrich would attempt to defend a terrible movie merely because of its religious undertones. Too often, poorly written and directed films are given higher praise than they deserve because people feel compelled to overlook bad filmmaking in lieu of religious allegience.

In addition, it greatly surprises me that a man such as Goodrich would elect to support a film with blatant religious iconography. While it is inconsequential, in my opinion, it does strike me as somewhat ironic that Goodrich was offended that Bob Grimm said “enough of the Jesus as a lion movies already.” Seriously, as a self-proclaimed Christian advocate, perhaps more consideration should be given to the “golden calf” metaphor or the “Jesus as mundane safari animals” metaphor. Maybe if Aslan was a wooly lamb with a fearsome headbutt, I could understand the outrage, but given that C.S. Lewis’ beloved lion in no way is a biblical reference to the offspring portion of the Holy Trinity, I find Mr. Goodrich’s comments unfounded.

I greatly enjoy Bob Grimm’s reviews and have always found them to be humorous, intelligent, and entertaining. I look forward to reading many more of them in the future.

Heather Diederich
via email

A real columnist
Re “We have oil, let’s get it” (Know You’re Right, June 12):

You state in your essay, “For those who don’t want the gas price lowered, well, I am at a loss as to where their heads are.”

This isn’t a tough one: How about, their heads are into money and profits? Don’t you know that the two top guys in the White House (and C. Rice) make big bucks in oil? What have they done to lower prices? Why would they and others like them want prices lowered? Do you think they care more about common gas consumers or their own bank accounts?

Also, have you heard about global warming? You don’t even mention it, and I don’t mean to imply it’s proven or anything, but you should know that it comes to mind in energy planning, there’s a reason why we’re not heavily pursuing coal and oil. It sort of blows me away that you can be so insensitive and irresponsible. Please tell me that you’re not a real person and that the RN&R created you to provide a perverted right-wing perspective.

Scott Bechard
via email

That’s the question
Re “Is rodeo cruel to animals?” (Streetalk, June 26):

H. Ross Perot would have a field day with this ninth circle of an excuse for discourse. Depending on punctuation alone to make a grammatical concatenation try to serve as a sentence is desperate at best.

Kahlil Wilken was especially revealing with the obsolete talking point, “… but they don’t have thoughts and feelings the way we do.”


Did we really have to know about the turd in Kahlil’s pocket?

The juxtaposition of this lame Streetalk “question” with Cory Farley’s essay speaks volumes.

Farley’s modest proposal: “What if the American consumer … were to look at the world through adult eyes?”

Flombaye Krishnabob Ellison

That’s just bull
Re “Bulls eye” (Feature story, June 26):

I was all excited about reading the article about the bulls and ripped the pages open to find out that it was only pictures. What, no interview? What I really wanted to know was what goes through the bull’s mind as his eye sees the rodeo. Does he think “I’m going to throw this M-F off of my back and then stick a horn up his ass!"? Is he as ticked off as he looks? How satisfying is it to stomp on a cowguy a few times after he is bucked off and hits the ground? Does he think “Crap! Another day at the rodeo!"? Maybe he thinks, “Ho hum … All I have to do is toss this sucker off to get back to that great looking hay they were tossing in the corral as I left.” Is the bull very aware of his rating as a mean-assed bucker or does he not really care about that system at all? Don’t the bulls ever figure out that the barrel the clown jumps into is open on one end and just stomp in there once or twice or maybe stick a horn in? When the bull tosses the rider off immediately, does he get high fives (maybe high hooves) from the other bulls later?

Come on, guys get with it! I want some real meat in my articles, not just pictures!

Don Johnson