The hard choice
wrote that states “will have no choice except to levy a panoply of regressive
“Matrix Politics,” May 23–29]. I strongly disagree. The fact that politicians
may be more interested in ensuring their re-election than in finding creative
solutions does not equate to having no choice. For example, increasing gasoline
taxes to levels more like Europe’s would not only help fund the state, but would
at the same time help accomplish the fuel economy that other methods have failed
to achieve, help clear the air, reduce the trade imbalance, reduce funding of
terrorists, and fall most heavily on the wealthy SUV drivers. So why is this
approach ignored by the media? Could it be that the editors themselves like
to guzzle gas? Could it be that they like to point out the hypocrisy of others
while hiding their own? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and the media
should be big enough to accept blame for spending more time whining about Washington
than proposing solutions that work.
Our bum rep
Last Days” [photo essay by Teun Voeten, May 23–29], as a loyal Republican
who usually gets your paper only for the free movie listings, I was excited
to see your pullout photo spread on vandalized images of Saddam Hussein. I had
heard your paper was for leftist kooks, but I see you’ve followed the lead of
the established media and focused on the badness of Saddam and the damage done
by the war to property.
I think your bum rep as a leftist paper is unfair: I never even saw any photos
of dead or wounded Iraqis in your paper. Also, Marc Cooper and other Weekly
columnists did a great job of undermining those wacko peaceniks — who really
just needed to get a job already. The Bush administration went in there to liberate
Iraqis, the oil being just a coincidence, and your photo spread proves it.
Your caption also nicely puts to rest any lefty whiners’ ideas that Saddam might
still be alive, or that there is instability in Iraq, or hostility toward the
Keep up the good work.
—Jenni A. Dreger-Epps
Uneasy does it
In his notes on Bush at War
[“The 10 Most Influential Books of the Past Year,” May 30–June 5], John
Powers implies that Bob Woodward is not a serious journalist because
he does not “dig into the truth” of what he is saying. Who can know the truth?
As Woodward himself says, “Criticism, the judgments of history and other information
may, over the coming months and years, alter historical understanding of this
era.” The picture I drew from this book is of a president who prides himself
on his gut decisions, has a low tolerance for detail, debate, doubt and dissent,
and has a grandiose vision for his presidency — an “ambitious reordering of
the world through preemptive and, if necessary, unilateral action to reduce
suffering and bring peace” (Page 341). This picture gives me much unease. Woodward
also gives interesting insights into the roles played by supporting players
in the administration, the Pentagon and the CIA in the push toward war. Let
readers form their own judgments.
The desert, as is
Re: Arty Nelson’s “Birth
of a Notion” [May 23–29]. Hmmm, the desert . . . New York . . . ? It’s scary
to me, as a desert artist and full-time resident of the high desert, to see
this trend — or should I say, trendy thing trying to happen here. The desert
is about space, not necessarily about filling the space with something. There
are a lot of different people out here, and they, along with the landscape and
sky, are what make this place so wonderful. It seems like this New York art
thing needs to give itself a big deep breath. What’s great about the desert
is that pretension, style, fashion and all the other crap does not exist here.
In fact, it’s fascinating how the desert reveals rather quickly that which is
not of substance. Hopefully, if your article inspires people to come here, they
will come now and enjoy the art of the sun baking them at 105 degrees. The desert
is trying to humble everyone here. It does not always succeed, and many people
just don’t get it. The desert is about getting over it and letting it go.
I guess my main point here is that everything affects everything else. Do
whatever you enjoy, just consider that what makes this place great is its as-is
quality. Be careful what you wish for, and keep it simple.
In the recent “Summer Get Out ’03” special insert of
the L.A. Weekly, your writer Dave Shulman penned an interesting article
on the Temescal Loop Trail [“Exiting
the System,” May 23–29]. He unfortunately ended his piece with incorrect
and possibly dangerous advice on removing ticks: “If you go climbing trees near
the stream, you might, as one of my friends discovered a few weeks back, provide
a last meal for some down-on-their-luck ticks, which, upon discovering, you
might wish to burn to death with a hot knife or needle, or suffocate with a
handy blob of peanut butter.” ‰
A tick should never be removed with the methods he describes. Infection,
Lyme disease or other problems can result. An injured or dying tick tends to
regurgitate your blood right back into your bloodstream — with its own nasty
microbes, bacteria and viruses added to the mix. Please let Mr. Shulman and
your readers know that the wives’-tale methods he described (burning or suffocating)
can be harmful. Simple tweezers on the live tick are the safest way.
From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
What is the best way to remove a tick?
To remove attached ticks, use the following procedure:
1) Use fine-tipped tweezers or shield your fingers with a tissue, paper towel,
or rubber gloves.
2) Grasp the tick as close to the skin surface as possible and pull upward
with a steady, even pressure. Do not twist or jerk the tick; this may cause
the mouthparts to break off and remain in the skin. (If this happens, remove
mouthparts with tweezers. Consult your health-care provider if infection occurs.)
3) Do not squeeze, crush or puncture the body of the tick because its fluids
(saliva, hemolymph, gut contents) may contain infectious organisms.
4) Do not handle the tick with bare hands because infectious agents may enter
through mucous membranes or breaks in the skin. This precaution is particularly
directed to individuals who remove ticks from domestic animals with unprotected
fingers. Children, the elderly, and immuno-compromised persons may be at greater
risk of infection and should avoid this procedure.
5) After removing the tick, thoroughly disinfect the bite site and wash your
hands with soap and water.
6) You may wish to save the tick for identification in case you become ill
within two to three weeks. Your doctor may use the information to assist in
making an accurate diagnosis. Place the tick in a plastic bag and put it in
your freezer. Write the date of the bite on a piece of paper with a pencil and
place it in the bag.
The Weekly has received two first-place awards
in the eighth annual Alternative Newsweekly Awards contest. John Powers won
in the category of arts criticism (for his film reviews), and Max S. Gerber
won the photography award for a series on L.A. scientists called “Microbats,
Broken Skulls, Rocket Girls & Prehistoric Beach Bears” (https://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/features-gerber.php).
That piece was conceived by former Weekly art director Bill Smith, who
also received an honorable mention for his cover designs. With the two new awards,
announced last week at the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies’ annual convention,
the Weekly has now received a total of 29 first-place awards, more than
any other member paper.