Letters for December 28, 2000
Deathray fires back
Re “It’s Their Own Fault” by Kurt Foy Booker (SN&R Letters, Dec. 14):
Kurt, a few of your points about my band are ill-informed and/or entirely inaccurate:
1. We didn’t “bail” on our tour based solely on the broad layoffs of Capricorn staff. At the time, we simply did not want to continue spending our ever-dwindling tour support money on a tour that up to that point had been a complete disaster for five solid weeks. That would’ve been unfair to fans and the band alike. We would much rather re-group at home, then go back out again after our partners in “bizness” get their shit together, or wait until we’re able to tour on our own. Do you really think we are so ethically lazy? Re: the “sheer enjoyment of performing music,” please! Just come out to any of our shows and stop making an ass of yourself. Don’t ever doubt our “motivations” again.
2. Your point about musical tastes not shifting much between ’99 & ’00 is valid, and I agree, but I don’t believe that’s entirely what Griffith was saying with regard to our record being delayed.
3. We were never reviewed in Spin magazine—not to say we didn’t get our share of lukewarm reviews. However, most reviews I’ve read have been highly flattering. I’d advise you to check out prior issues of Smug magazine, the Onion, Raygun, Launch.com, etc., or go to www.deathraymusic.com for more back-patting excess.
You may be pleased to know that we have been officially released from our Capricorn contract with the rights to our debut album. We’re proud to be able to say we own that record, and on this point, yes sir, we are indeed lucky.
Dana Gumbiner and Deathray
Radioactivity is safe, sissies!
Re “Still Glowing” by J.A. Savage (SN&R News, Dec. 7):
I am accustomed to seeing articles with an obvious anti-nuclear slant in various so-called environmental newsletters. I was surprised to find one so blatant in your periodical, which I sense is not particularly partisan. This article is so filled with distortions, misinformation and exaggerations that to make it available to the public is tantamount to an alarming dissemination of pernicious propaganda. Why is it that only negative views of nuclear issues make it in the popular press? Is it because it generates fear, and fear gets more attention than heart-warming facts such as the generation of nuclear power worldwide has never been more reliable, available and safe. The 108 nuclear power plants in this country supply about 20 percent of our electrical capacity, without which, in the light of the chaos in fossil fuel supply, we would be in dire straits. Nor should we ignore their effect in reducing what would be an enormous pollution assault on our atmosphere. It’s time for the press to start propagating the truth and rely less upon sensationalism for attention.
Martin W. Schwartz
Soccer moms cause meltdown
Re “Bless the Child and Pass the Scalpel” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R, Dec. 14):
Jim and Lori Armstrong ask “Why did God make our seventh child’s head abnormal?” I’ll tell you why. He is trying to let you know that you are having too many kids, you nitwits! Mindless baby machines like you are destroying our planet. War, poverty, disease, crime, etc. can all be traced to one basic cause: too many people.
“But there’s still plenty of space on Earth,” you say? Yeah, but not enough space for the pollution that we, as a race, create. Global warming, for instance, helped along by witless cows in their SUVs loaded with brats, has for the first time in known history caused the North Pole to melt.
Some day our race will be extinct, and it will be the fault of all the Lori Armstrongs of the world.
Less kids, more quality
Re “Bless the Child and Pass the Scalpel” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Dec. 14) and “Local Mom Slams Agency” by Amy Yannello (SN&R News, Dec. 14):
There was a major theme in your last issue: stories regarding the boy with a cranial deformity and the mom who had difficulty with Child Protective Services, a theme neither article mentioned in any way: too many children. The couple with the formerly deformed son have seven children; the couple with CPS “intrusion” have five. In the latter case, the number of children is a major factor in their inability to be quality parents.
In both families, there is no way a particular child can be raised properly to reach its full and independent potential. It is very difficult to bring up two children, the so-called “replacement” number, if parents believe children deserve a wide array or nurturing and education opportunities, lots of time with their parents, high-quality nutrition, love, caring, space and individual attention.
The human race adds about 230,000 people to the planet each day. That is births minus deaths. It is preposterous to believe that the extra eight children represented by just the two families you covered won’t have major environmental impact and won’t suffer as a result of future problems caused by the continuing explosion of the population. Even at the replacement level of one child per adult, it will take 60 years for the population to stop growing.
Get thee to court!
Re “Not so Fast, Folsom” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Frontlines, Dec. 14):
The problem of affordable housing is certainly statewide with our political leaders ignoring the law in deference to those in the higher income segment of our society. Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to force Folsom and other communities to provide housing for all income groups is through litigation; talking about it does not get the job done.
Folsom and other non-conforming political entities should not be allowed to issue any more permits for new construction until they have an acceptable affordable housing plan. I certainly would like to see the NIMBYs in these gated communities set aside a portion of their wealthy little enclosures for the working poor. The various advocates for the poor should get off their duffs, go into court and force the issue.
James G. Updegraff