By Alex Distefano
By Scott Snowden
By Anna Merlan
By Steve Almond
By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
Re Maria Luisa Tucker's 'To Catch-22 a Predator' [July 16–22]: When it comes to sex crimes, the Voice and Tucker endorse the "worst of the worst" logic that the Bush administration uses to justify denying due process to Guantánamo prisoners.
Your headline says it all: "It's Legal Limbo for Men Who Probably Deserve It." "Probably deserve it"? And this despite the inadequate psychiatric "treatment" and bogus or questionable predictions of "future dangerousness" discussed in the article itself.
In your faces
Re Tom Robbins's 'Cops Rip Up Rappers' [July 9–15]: I'm a white boy from Queens and I don't break the law, nor do I look for trouble, and somehow I've managed to be harassed by police in just about every encounter I've had with them.
No one in my life has treated me like a bad person except for NYPD cops, who follow a policy of the lowest common denominator, meaning that they treat everyone like a criminal.
The guys are typical in-your-face punk rappers. Luckily, they've got bleeding-heart dorkboys like you to cry about their plight and perhaps throw a little promotion their way. Oh, and what's the point of sticking in the comment about how their parents fled Pinochet's Chile? Nothing to do with the story.
The police spokesperson says it all. Here are two young Latino males breaking the stereotype placed on them by society. They are actually standing for something positive and not getting lost in the drugs in our community. And they're called "wannabes" and "idiots"? That's the problem. It seems the cops probably thought they were punks, and it turns out they are a community-supported positive rap group. Brilliant!
Tom Robbins should be thanked for giving light to these kids and showing how, once again, the NYPD believes itself to be above the law.
Bones to pick
Re Robert Sietsema's 'Eating Kids' and Sarah DiGregorio's 'Fro-Yo With a Side of Virtue' [July 16–22]: I'd like to point out a few problems. First, Sietsema writes of "the corn fungus huitlacoche, which tastes like the rubber-free fuck of a mushroom and a truffle." I'd note the ridiculously childish and crudely unnecessary and unprofessional use of profanity (apparently, the writer lacks the confidence and skills necessary to wow with normal prose). More importantly, this is pure gibberish.
If he means that it tastes like offspring, then "rubber-free" is redundant. If he means some coagulation of coital fluids, that's just gross. Apparently the message is that you don't want normal people with normal standards of decency to read your restaurant reviews.
Then, DiGregorio writes of yogurt products that are "lower in fat and calories than ice cream" without saying how much lower, and mentions an expert's request to "have the calories tested by an independent lab" without actually doing so.
Apparently, the message is that we should go find out for ourselves.
All this bespeaks unforgivable arrogance and sloth on the part of both your journalists and editors.
Re Gustavo Arellano's 'Mexicans in La Migra?' [¡Ask a Mexican!, July 16]: Readers on the website sent in comments that included derogatory words referring to Caucasians, such as "Polack," "Kraut," and "Hun."
It seems that although Hispanics resent words such as "wetback," it's fine to use derogatory words against Caucasians. Hypocritical, I would say.
My grandfather and father were Germans named Karl, but because people in the '30s and '40s called them Huns, they anglicized their names to Charles.
Hispanics should practice what they preach.Karl E. Wahl