Dittohead Defense
To the Editor:With regard to Tom Danehy's "Broadcast Views" (Tucson Weekly, May 4), his opening remarks foreshadowed the content of his diatribe. He admitted to being the "very small compared to usual expectations" (nominal) "radio-TV guy" (a reputation which he more than lived up to) at The Weakling on whose shoulders "fell" the awful responsibility of having to opine on the "controversy" of "the battle of the airwaves" (read: talk radio) following the Oklahoma City bombing.
It was interesting to note, for anyone who was paying attention, that his "review" was the epitome of the only substantive quote he chose to use of Rush Limbaugh's: "When liberals lack a substantive argument, they resort to name calling."
Danehy, perhaps in one of his "wiser" (wiseguy?) moments, began his carefully crafted attack--err, "review"--by characterizing Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy as "bilge-spouting, rancid right-wing pustules" and went on to say that he "hate(s) those assholes." My, what vocabulary coming from the self-proclaimed "wiser" guy, supposedly full of light and love!
We should all be so "wise" as not to "fall" to the lower-than-a-rattle-snake's-belly level that Danehy descends to in his feeble attempt to add to the "hate" rhetoric being espoused in the self-righteous media. (Ah, but one forgets, that is his job. Sorry!)
Danehy then continues his "wiser" approach by calling Limbaugh "a mean-spirited" (the current hate-instilled invective in vogue among the media-with-an-agenda), "woman-hating dirty fighter who has...[tapped] a rich vein of pissed-off white people ...who are too lazy or too stupid to think for themselves."
In one fell swoop Mr. Danehy managed not only to speak ill of Limbaugh, but to include in his insulting invective Limbaugh's quite considerable audience.
Next, he stooped to (ah, but it's in his blood) the unfortunately common practice of quoting someone out of context in order to create a context for his own agenda.
The problem with this is that there are those out there who actually do listen to these programs (unlike Mr. Danehy, who chooses to hear only what he wants of the broadcasts) and know better than to buy into something as shallow as what Mr. Danehy has suggested.
This practice (of quoting out of context) has been so over-used by both sides of the political spectrum so that it is no wonder that Americans in general mistrust both the media and those "mouthpieces" in government who attempt to create one "crisis" after another in their rush to usurp more control.
If Mr. Danehy really wants to serve the public good, he should consider refraining from commenting on things he's not taken the time to research. (But then, that would be too much to hope for, wouldn't it? It's his job to distort the facts to fit his agenda.)
All Mr. Danehy has succeeded in doing with his "review"
is to show all who took the time to read it how "nominal"
he really is.
--James Anderson
Militia Madness
To the Editor,
I just finished reading Mel Watcher's "Militia Menace"
(Tucson Weekly, May 4). This eye-opening piece sent chills
down my spine! I encouraged everyone to read this piece, re-read
it, and then pass it on to someone else to read. Very well thought-out,
well written piece!
Leo Banks' "Son of a Gun" was an excellent profile
of Sheriff Richard Mack. Why do I get the feeling that if "Ritchie"
lived about a 100 years ago, he'd be putting paint on his face
and standing in a "mountain meadow" in Utah saying,
"Come on boys, it's the settlers or us!" But then, that's
a subject most Mormons would rather not discuss.
--Lisa Meyers
