Letters for December 31, 2009
Letter of the week
And a pot o’ gold for you!
Re “Cruising for urban legends” by Ted Cox (SN&R Arts&Culture, December 17):
I’m somewhat dismayed at your publication’s treatment of so-called “little people” in your recent article.
First of all, the proper term is “wee folk.”
Second, it is an established fact (I found it on Wikipedia; it must be true) that the “wee folk” are not seen in the streets at night, due to their penchant for repairing shoes.
How dare you insinuate that this magical being (who has so graced us humans with her presence) is some sort of common harlot? The collecting of shoes to be repaired is a time-honored tradition amongst the “wee folk.” Why else would she be climbing in and out of cars all day long?!? If not for the collecting, and subsequent repair of, shoes, then … what?
I also noticed that several of your so-called “witnesses” seemed to have vague and conflicting accounts of having seen her. This is, of course, due to the “wee folk” ability to cloud the minds of us mortals, lest we track them to the end of the rainbow.
Next time, please do a little more research before publishing an article. I’ve never had to doubt the veracity of your fine paper before, but after that slanderous article, you’ve given me reason to do that very thing. For shame!
Spotlight on staying
Re “Staying power” by Jeffrey Ewing and Noel Neuburger (SN&R Feature, December 24):
Thank you for spotlighting people in this community who really make a big difference. This is the kind of information that CNN or Fox News just don’t cover. Seeing people that I have met or know in different capacities being celebrated for what they do [is] definitely good journalism.
Thank you, SN&R.
Re “I want to believe” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Race to the Bottom, December 17):
Jesse Ventura did a creditable job of exposing what has become internationally known as a fraud. It is amazing that [SN&R] is one of the few mainstream publications to even talk about Ventura’s show. His show has done a good job of revealing things that have been kept secret for too long.
Re “My cancer story” by John Hall (SN&R Essay, December 17):
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the story of the writer, I would say that at least there is hope, in both views, actually. My mother has had renal cell carcinoma for three years and was on chemo originally in the second year. She has since been off for one year, and the cancer has diminished but not disappeared.
As a son to her, I am interested to at least pursue these ideas; it is better than not knowing at all, as we certainly hear of the prior from the doctors only. We’ll give it a try; it can’t hurt! Thanks for your story.
Off our meds …
Re “I want to believe” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Race to the Bottom, December 17), “My cancer story” by John Hall (SN&R Essay, December 17), and “ClimateGate! ClimateGate!” by Kel Munger (SN&R Cut&Paste, December 17):
With all the running back and forth from conspiracy theories to “woo-woo” wannabe-medicine to insistence on science, I think SN&R is a little confused. Are you off your meds, guys? Maybe you can get some help from all the pot shops that advertise in your rag.
… or under
So apparently, there was a SN&R staff meeting, and the boss said every columnist must work “ClimateGate” into his/her story, no matter how far removed it was from the subject, and refer to the e-mails as being “illegally hacked” from the poor scientists’ computers.
Dismiss the idea that illegal, immoral and totally unscientific methods and results were uncovered, and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you as “climate-change deniers” or “idiots who believe in the ClimateGate myth.”
Refer to mountains of contradictory evidence and thousands of documents you have no knowledge of, just as if they really exist, because your readers will assume you have actually looked into this.
Excuse me, but some of us have read Saul Alinsky, and you aren’t fooling us. I’ll make this simple for you.
Assume that, like the poor victim scientists, your income and your university’s income depend to a large part on government funding. You are charged with proving the existence of unicorns. As long as you show progress, the money keeps coming in, your grant is renewed each year and you are employed.
If another scientist comes up with evidence that the unicorn could not have existed, you simply disregard that evidence and attack the other scientist. You might even disparage the “unicorn deniers” and try to influence other scientists (who are also receiving grants for unicorn research) to prevent the unicorn deniers from publishing their findings in well-regarded scientific journals. Since you and your colleagues are the scientific establishment of unicorn research, you control all the journals, and positive “peer review” of your findings is a given.
Your bogus science is accepted as fact, and the deniers are refused peer review by you and your fellows.
The hackers are either whistle-blowers trying to save the world’s economies from an outrageous hoax or outlaw terrorist hackers. It’s a matter of perspective. What is clear is that you have little knowledge of the subject and a very clear prejudice.
You puke this rubbish for the same reason the scientists manipulated, twisted and controlled the “science.”
Follow the money. Simple.
He got paid … but not
Re “Cruising for an urban legend” by Ted Cox (SN&R Arts&Culture, December 17):
Seriously? Did you get paid for this article?
First off, it kind of disgusts and humors me that you are obsessed with little people. Yes, I am a little person, so, yes, I’m going to be defensive—but regardless, do people really read this stuff? Short or tall, to “hunt down” a little person who is a prostitute makes it publishable?
Couldn’t you write about anything else in Sacramento, or are you the writer they ask to write “sideshow fodder”?
Anyway, best of luck finding “Darlene,” who is a person and not a “midget twirling a boa.”