Yes, We Have No Bandanas To the Editor, While Tom Danehy "absolutely despise(s) the politics of sports" and does seem to have a legitimate gripe with the other managers in the Bobby Sox League ("Poor Sports," Tucson Weekly, July 4), I can't help but remember how Danehy the coach, manager, sports writer and parent wrote last year in support of the NFL's banning of football players' wearing of bandannas. Why did Danehy support this politicization of sports fashions and write about it in the Tucson Weekly? Ostensibly because he, like the NFL higher-ups, believe bandannas are gang paraphernalia and so the wearing of them supports gangs who (everybody knows) are violent and criminal and thus, bandannas must be banned as the wrong image of football is presented and the kids might get the wrong idea...and so on... But I thought Danehy despises and avoids sports politics? These days it is politically fashionable to be anti-bandanna even in hot desert places like Tucson. The logic is carried out to its extreme so that Native Americans who have utilized bandannas as protections from the summer heat for centuries now are regarded by sports writers and police alike as gang suspects simply because of a one-foot-square piece of cotton worn to keep one's hair in place and sweat from one's eyes. In Tucson, young Native Americans, Chicanos and hippies are no longer permitted to wear bandannas in public schools and shopping malls, for that "Apache" look is regarded as inherently violence-provoking and unacceptable in civil society. Never mind that it is 107 degrees outside. So to make a long story short, Danehy, you lay off your politically prejudiced attack on Native peoples' fashion practices and I will likewise support unprejudiced evaluations of your daughter's sports contributions and worthiness to be on the All-Star team. I would like to join your ethical bandwagon, but at the moment me and my bandanna are banned from riding upon it. --Guy Lopez Hart Attack To the Editor, Vicki Hart's article "HMOs: Hideous Medical Ordeals" (Tucson Weekly, July 11) may very well outline the plight of medical insurance and the limitations of western medicine, but it does a better job of describing the feeble-minded and passive attitudes most consumers display when challenged with health care questions. In defense of the insurance industry, I must say that Hart really does need to have her head examined if she continued to perform/submit to painful treatments (even under a physician's recommendation), allowed her HMO and affiliated doctors to give her the run-around and let her condition worsen without taking charge of her own health. If Hart, like most of the consumers of medical care, used her own judgment, listened to her body as well as consulted medical professionals, then the insurance company would not be blamed for the consumer's lack of intelligent action and use of medical resources. Hart should be embarrassed that she allowed herself to be treated without results for three weeks and yet continued to remain passive about it when it came to obtaining the appropriate medical care. How can she blame her HMO? If she had used simple common sense she would have sought treatment at a reputable emergency room (after the first botched attempt by the HMO), made payment arrangements if she could not afford the charge and contacted the Department of Insurance regarding the HMO's operations. Most likely the result would be 100 percent coverage of the emergency room charge and a resolved ear infection. --Diane Fern Nintzel Raped A Candidate To the Editor, Senior Editor Jim Nintzel wins my Ninny of the Week(ly) Award for running the side-by-side photos of Keating and Sweeny which, Nintzel admits, "have absolutely nothing to do with each other" ("Separated at Birth," Tucson Weekly, July 4). So why run them? Answer: Possibly Nintzel is hard up for political jest. But why at the expense of your credibility and a conscientious, hard-working honest candidate like Sweeney? Instead of filling your column with incongruities and non sequiturs ("Although Sweeney couldn't beat Kolbe even if the incumbent had been dead for a month, he delivered a lame speech decrying corporate welfare..."), why not cover what Sweeny said about corporate welfare, an important topic not adequately reported by the press? But that would require hard thinking--analysis! It's so much easier to sink into trivial meanness, and be responsible in other stories. --Ed Finkelstein P.S. Yes, I'm "sick" about your "mean-spirited attacks." You admit your mean-spiritedness! Is it a character trait? Stand By Your Man To The Editor, Impeach him! Impeach him! That's all you people say. I don't hear those same people yelling for Clinton to be impeached! Why not? Look at all the problems the Clinton White House is having: Whitewater, Travelgate, FBI files, and all those staff members they've had to replace. If you want to cry for impeachment, try Billy Boy. Of course, it is still innocent until proven guilty and that goes for both of them. It seems that you people are willing to overlook major problems in the White House, giving Bill and his Lawyer a chance, but Old Fife is already guilty and should be hung. If you want them impeached, just wait and don't vote for them the next time or wait until they are proven guilty in a court of law. --Stefan Gogosha Editor's note: In spite of the fact that Gov. J. Fife Deadbeat III has never once expressed an iota of remorse for his misuse of public office or his reprehensible business practices (which have led to a 23-count federal indictment), we'd nonetheless like to clear the record: We've been relentlessly critical of Gov. Deadbeat, but we've yet to call for his impeachment. We do, however, expect he will resign. We Want Letters! Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth