The New Yorker and a cruel sheriff

The New Yorker published an 11-page piece in its July 20 issue on Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, known for torture and deaths that occur in his jails, and for the cruelty and humiliation he orders to be practiced on arrested persons, including those awaiting trial. My letter to the editor:

"Granted the New Yorker is characterized by its eclectic content, how can you justify devoting the better part of eleven pages to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio who is characterized by indefensible acts of cruelty? If you meant to illustrate the horror and nightmare his practices have brought to thousands of our fellow citizens you could have done it in a more tightly edited piece. Given perhaps that was not your choice, did you mean to glorify him? Your magazine has not given such space to the like of presidents or notable figures in culture and the arts. Why join the mainstream media in its obsession with narcissistic and pathological figures?"

To City Council re horses

Please tell me detailed plans for the Boston police horses now that the division has been closed. Also, please tell me the names of the agency or persons who will monitor those plans, also the location(s) of the places the horses will be taken. I am concerned that, once the media coverage ebbs, they might be sold for carriage horses or to slaughter houses. The "use" of carriage horses amounts to prisoner labor without respite or care. Treatment of carriage horses in Boston needs to be carefully investigated by knowledgeable sources. If competently done such an investigation would lead to the end of their use on the streets of Boston. In most European capitols "use" of carriage horses has been banned. How prisoner animals are treated is a litmus test for civilization. Thank you,

Response to roof gardens piece

Heartening to see a news piece that encourages new business buildings to have plantable roofs. Imagine a time when many rooftops became gardens or meadows, especially on commercial and institutional buildings. The sprawling hospital complexes within most cities would be a good place to extend rooftop gardening to bring air-cleaning, relief, solace and perhaps even help in healing the stressed spirits of the ailing, their families and their medical professionals. We need to seek and welcome any thing we can do to increase the greenness of the earth we have assaulted so much with the environmental destruction labeled "progress."

Androcles writes to the Post & the Times

This to the Washington Post:


Ceci Connolly's piece on health care reform was a betrayal to those who are seriously considering this critical issue and also a betrayal to the ethics of journalism. The Post endorsed that betrayal by placing the piece so prominently. Health care is too important for subjective or biased reporting. Yelling, headline grabbing and skewed journalism betrays the public and makes it harder for our nation to grow into an adult state where honest discussion can flourish and re-enforce the ideal of citizen participation. Thank you.

=0=

This to the New York Tms:

In her report on the Chicago police reunion Monica Davey wrote: "But for other retired officers, this was a chance at last to correct history, at least quietly, among one another..."

This sentence needed to have read something like: "at last to give their version of history..." or "at last to try to correct history according to their versions..." The declarative writing used in the Davey sentence assumes or even affirms that the officers have the ability or the right to "correct history." It's sloppy syntax which ends up giving a personal and questionable opinion. We may discuss, reflect, remember, insist. No single group or person can correct history. Where was the editor?

Michael Jackson

I can't stand to read the cacophony of commentary... so I'm not.
I'm weary of the formula. First we adore, then we mock and joke, then we weep, revise, backtrack and cavil when they die.

"Hunting" is not hunting

Aerial killing of wolves in Alaska is a kind of warfare. The word used to describe it is an affront. "Hunting" by sophisticated aircraft using assault weapons is not "hunting" -- it is massacre and mass murder. It bears no resemblance to a lone human who may kill an animal on the ground for food.

In some instances the consciousness of humanity has evolved beyond random mass killing and destruction of the "other" life on the earth. We need more realization that such destruction cannot occur without consequences for humanity and for all of life.

Is this kind of massacre what America really wants to give as an example to other nations, particularly in the "third" world where enlightened leaders and thinkers work to persuade "native" peoples to nurture wildlife as part of a program of economic development through eco-tourism?

At this point the "government" of Alaska encourages and rewards the massacre of wolves in any fashion. When will the citizens there realize that they do not have to blindly obey the government when it says "kill?" The wildlife of all the lands of America and the earth are our co-inhabitants of the globe. They are part of the sacred richness of the world along with all peoples and their descendants. Humankind is the apex predator species of the planet - yes. Yet it is not given to us to conduct large scale massacre of other species. No religious texts promote it. The principles of life and the web of life speak softly to say: No.

The vast organism which is earth itself has been illustrating the consequences of human destruction. Wolf murderers and those who support and encourage them are as out of step as would be Neanderthals who might appear among us.

Personal Style of Singer Susan Boyle Derided

About Susan Boyle I've seen, read and heard condescending remarks about her "frumpy" style.

What kinds of human beings are we in our various societies that we focus instantly with such harsh judgement on the appearance of this talented person? Beginning with the audience and the panel, all felt comfortable with mocking and laughing when she appeared on stage.

Consider what was seen: She was not young...she was well groomed, clean, neat, polite, spirited in a quirky way, wearing a dated "best" dress and no makeup except a bit of lipstick. If it is a given that such a condition brings mockery and condescension I suppose we may soon identify another group of people who are not a minority but a kind of majority: women not young, mushy in the middle, not fashionable. There are millions of them (us). If Susan Boyle sang in a church or a community center in that outfit no one would mock her. If she appears at Carnegie Hall -- even if she is not "made over" and poured into a sleek dress -- no one would condescend to her.

Imagine a Stanley Boyle in the same situation: outdated suit, barber-shop haircut, mushy in the middle, clean... and so on. I'm pretty sure he would be thought interesting, quirky, individualistic, his own man, a personality, an un-found star.

Everyone did a flip when her remarkable voice -- and her spirit -- resounded in that plastic over-produced television show. Is there a chance -- along with the surprise and pleasure she brought -- that we might all think for awhile of looking differently upon the often-deviating appearances of the people all around us? Not only them, but us -- so often talented, decent, honorable, worthwhile in ways we don't instantly see.