Letters to the Editor - Baloney! January 08 2004

I must take issue with John Robinson’s letter to the editor concerning bars closing earlier (Going Postal, “A True Happy Hour,” Jan. 1). Mr. Robinson states that we can’t be “too safe” and that he has felt the dark pressure to commit mayhem during certain hours as opposed to any other hour of the day. This is ridiculous. The fact is that we can be too safe. Mr. Robinson is a perfect portrait of the wiffle ball, sissy boy, soccer playing society we are turning into.

Perhaps for safety sake we should wear an eight-point seat belt and helmets in our cars. Maybe we should sand all sharp corners off our furniture and glue nerf balls to every hard object that may injure someone. Ridiculous! As far as this intangible urge Mr. Robinson has to commit crime between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., someone get the padded room ready for this man during that hour.

What are you, Mr. Robinson? A werewolf that cannot control his urges at certain hours? Why stop at closing bars at 2 a.m.? Let’s pass a law forcing women to wear long robes and veils to help prevent rape. Mr. Robinson, the world is not safe and your ideas will do nothing but make us less free. The problem is animals that masquerade as people whom cannot control themselves like gentlemen. These kinds of people need to be roughed up by the cops and thrown in lockup for a few nights when they succumb to the “dark pressure” of 4-5 a.m. Perhaps you will join them, Mr. Robinson.

-- Jon Avery, Atlanta

br>?Liberal lemmings
Regarding Zell Miller as Scalawag of the Year (Views, Dec. 25), this is an undeserving slam on a person who has done more for this state and his party that anyone else from Georgia in the last 30 years.

“Traitor! What have you done for me lately? Scalawag!! Blah, blah, blah ...”

I’ve always enjoyed reading the PC-brainwashed lemmings at CL, such as you, who stand from your usual perch on the sidelines and complain about someone who doesn’t support the latest fad from the liberal elite. Quell horreur! Zell even supports war against our enemies.

Move on. You’ll have many more whiny, crybaby articles to write in the coming year when your wet-dream Democratic candidate associated extremist cohorts all get spanked at the polls.

-- John Peak, Atlanta

br>?Smackdown time
John Sugg: I would pay big bucks to see you and Neal Boortz in a verbal smackdown!! Please make sure all of your faithful readers get the word if such a thing occurs. But cowards such as Neal never come out of their protected environments, so I’m not holding my breath.

-- Claude Crider, Alpharetta

br>?Learning experience
Your article expresses my complaints with Boortz very nicely (Fishwrapper, “Neal Boortz is no John Galt,” Dec. 18). I cringe when people think he really is a Libertarian — but — he is helping the Libertarian cause just because if he wasn’t saying “libertarian,” many people wouldn’t know the word. I think the boot-Boortz activity is misused time.

I don’t think it necessary to boycott the whole convention nor is it useful to spend precious activist energy protesting his attendance (or presentation). I think a better way to protest is to skip out on his speech and do something useful with the hour. If nothing else, identifying what’s wrong about Boortz is a good exercise in learning to be articulate about what libertarianism is.

-- Lynn Krogseng, Palmetto

?Big L
Great writing on Boortz (Fishwrapper, “Neal Boortz is no John Galt,” Dec. 18). As a Libertarian (notice the big “L”), two things send chills up my spine:

- drug-heads who care only about making their drug of choice legal, and call themselves “libertarians.” {add: “While drug legalization is on the libertarian platform, it does not singularly define it.”}

- Mr. Boortz, a spokesperson for the neo-conservative movement, claiming to be a libertarian.

These are the folks that the media zoom in on when they focus on libertarians (many of whom, by definition, would never belong to a political party, even if it calls itself the Libertarian Party).

Well, I lied ... there is a third thing that gets to me. The “Libertarian” Party inviting him as a speaker. Those schmucks are lining up right behind the CATO Institute, whose formerly libertarian foundation is showing plenty of cracks.

You’ve done your duty and beautifully exposed this neo-con for what he is and isn’t. As a health professional, I would advise you to stop listening to this fountain of lies. It’s bad for your health.

-- Mike Reith, Fresno, Calif.

br>?High values
Bob Barr: I’m writing about your thoughtful column in Creative Loafing Atlanta (“Pre-emptive strike hits high schools,” Nov. 20). Like you, when I saw the video of the police raiding, with guns drawn and pointed at high school students at Stafford High School in Goose Creek, S.C., I was deeply disturbed and upset.

I am deeply disturbed and upset because, as I see it, our war on drugs has transformed the former “Land of Liberty” into a police state. Like you, I am very concerned with the loss of our personal privacy. Like you, I am very concerned with the potential for abuse of our personal freedom and personal privacy by the so-called “Patriot Act.” Like you, personal freedom and personal privacy are very high values for me and my family.

Unlike you, I believe Rush Limbaugh or any other adult citizen should be free to smoke, swallow, snort or inject any substance they want into their own bodies. Especially in the privacy of their own home, as long as they are personally responsible for the consequences.

Unlike you, I believe adult citizens should be free to alter their own minds in any way they please in the privacy of their own homes. Many things and substances alter minds — books, movies, good music (and bad music) schools, coffee, tobacco, food and yes, recreational drugs.

Almost all the problems we have with recreational drugs are because the drugs are illegal. Because the drugs are illegal, they are of unknown quality, unknown purity and unknown potency. Because drugs are illegal, they are untaxed, unregulated and controlled by criminal gangs — just like alcohol was when it was illegal.

In 1969, the federal drug enforcement budget was $65 million. Last year it was $19.2 billion (these figures don’t include the cost of incarceration or the state and local costs). The $19.2 billion is greater than a 295-fold increase.

In 1969 coffee sold for 25 cents a cup. If the price of coffee had risen at the same rate as our drug enforcement budget, we would now be paying almost $75 for a cup of coffee.

It seems to me that “true conservatives” would oppose wasteful counter-productive policies. Why don’t you oppose these wasteful counter-productive policies of drug criminalization?

-- Kirk Muse, Mesa, Ariz.