Unpleasant Aftertaste To the Editor, Regarding the "Best of Tucson" (Tucson Weekly, September 19): I was quite surprised to find that we were in a dogfight with Claire's Cafe. My husband and I moved here in May of 1995 and began to remodel and clean up the Lariat, an old landmark in Catalina. We still have a pool table in our saloon for folks to play on, and the only people who are not allowed to come in are those that do not respect our rules and can't behave themselves. We welcome people from all walks of life and have not excluded any special groups. Doug Madsen (not Dave) joined our team in August 1995. He had been employed by Claire. It was his choice to make a change in his career; we did not approach him about leaving Claire's. I was most unhappy with the phrase "Buy yourself a ticket to the dogfight going on between Claire's Cafe and The Lariat." We did not come to this community to do harm to anyone. The only true statement in that article is that we have gussied up our steakhouse and saloon and became a real family restaurant. I do not know who wrote this article, but we find it very unprofessional and full of untruths. We would welcome this person to come and talk to us about what we have and have not done to improve the quality of food and service at The Lariat. --Jerry J. Collins Lariat Steakhouse To the Editor, Regarding the "Best Breakfast in Catalina" item in this year's "Best of Tucson" (Tucson Weekly, September 19): The article refers to the relationship between Claire's Cafe and the Lariat as a "dogfight." There couldn't be anything farther from the truth. "Healthy or friendly competition" would be a much more accurate description. As far as the statement about stealing one of our employees goes, we have always encouraged them to pursue their own best interests. With this policy we have been able to continue our friendships with these people and leave the door open to future opportunities. Customers that have read the article have only negative feedback regarding the way the article insinuated no love lost between our two businesses. We know that this was written tongue-in-cheek and appreciate your support in the past; however, you must be made aware that the people in this community have not responded well to how the article was written. We would appreciate a little less color in your colloquialisms in future editions. -- Steve and Claire Johnson Claire's Cafe Green Drums To the Editor, I've just about had it up to here with your ad hominem style of journalism, which assumes that personal attacks constitute newsworthiness. In attacking Michael Crawford and the entire environmental subcommittee, you did nothing but divert focus from the real issue. ("The Skinny," Tucson Weekly, September 19) If you were able to hit the pavement with a little more proactive journalism, you might not have to resort to so much name-calling. Crawford may be a pawn and there's no question the environmental subcommittee is a joke. Yet that is just a footnote in the story you missed: the unregulated transportation and disposal of hazardous waste in Arizona. Without some legislative change, Arizona will continue to be threatened by the profit motives of corporations like Waste Management. I didn't see anyone representing The Weekly at the subcommittee meeting, which raises the question of whose personal agenda you are forwarding here. As a matter of fact, I didn't see The Weekly in Mobile or on Technical Drive nor at any recent council meeting and have not read a word of this issue in your rag until now. Ironically, the very next article is entitled "Too Little, Too Late" and attacks the Greens for protesting the importation of this hazardous waste at the state Capitol. You may feel this is not enough from an environmentally oriented party, but it seems like quite a lot when compared to the total dismissal given this issue by the supposedly progressive Tucson Weekly. Perhaps "Too Little, Too Late" should have been saved for your own subtitle. --Bill Moeller Shooting From The Lip To the Editor, Jeff Smith whines in "Spare the Rod...And Gun Club" (Tucson Weekly, September 19) that the club shouldn't have to close its doors because "they were there first." Wrong! The U.S. Forest Service, from whom the club rents the property, was there first, and we, the American citizens, own the national forests (at least until Congress sells them off to the highest bidder). How many other National Forests have shooting ranges on them? Has this become a new mission for the U.S. Forest Service? No one is advocating the closure of the Club--just a new location. (Why is the present site so sacred? Do club members shoot better there than they would at some other location?) Times change and needs change. We cannot move the mighty Catalina mountains, but we can and should move the Rod and Gun Club. --F.S. May To the Editor, I live approximately one mile south of the Tucson Rod and Gun Club and I agree with Jeff Smith when he says that no howitzers are fired there ("Spare the Rod...And Gun Club,"Tucson Weekly, September 19). They only sound like howitzers. --Richard B. Vosk In Praise Of Bob To the Editor, Regarding "Best Books--Used" (Tucson Weekly, September 19): It's too bad Leo Banks has to insult Bookman's owner, Bob Schlesinger, while praising the Grant Road store. He makes disparaging remarks about his TV commercials and the way he looks. Banks even suggests that if Schlesinger knew how much fun customers and employees were having he "might not like this." Give us a break. Who does he think is minding the store, anyway? --Elizabeth Michal 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