Letters to the Editor

What You Say

Regarding [News, "Scouts' Dishonor," J.F. Pirro, Jan. 11, 2007], there was no mention that the Boy Scouts also discriminate against atheists. This prohibition would bar from membership many of our nation's Nobel Prize winners, best writers, greatest thinkers, top performers and millions of law-abiding citizens, including Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Steve Allen, Andrew Carnegie, Katharine Hepburn, etc., etc. Moreover, it is very likely that many of our pre-Darwinian, deistic founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Tom Paine, would be atheists today and hence unqualified for the Boy Scouts.For an organization that claims strong support for our Constitution, the Scouts have an appalling view of the First Amendment's right to religious freedom.

Elkan Katz
Center City

Like the City Planning Commission's Janice Woodcock and PennPraxis' Harris Steinberg, I am also a professional planner [Loose Canon, "Fixing the River," Bruce Schimmel, Jan. 11, 2007] . A planner's first commitment is to serve the public interest even before our client's or employer's interest. It bothers me to no end to hear these planners say "there is nothing we can do about it." This statement doesn't just go against planning principles — it is a complete lie.

People all across the state fought to preserve local control over zoning and permitting of casinos, and we are fully within our rights to deny these casinos zoning, building permits or a number of other required allowances. There are acres and acres of land within the city that could house casinos of this scale and impact. The Navy Yard and the airport area are two examples of places far away from residential neighborhoods that come immediately to mind. Even placing them downtown, as Detroit, New Orleans and other cities have done, makes better sense, where transit access, existing garages and pocketfuls of out-of-state conventioneer and tourist money is close by. The fact is siting these casinos is far, far, far from a done deal, and anybody who tells you it is — especially a professional planner in charge of creating a truly public vision for the river — is either in on it or unworthy of their responsibilities.

Shawn Rairigh
Fishtown

I read both of the Fantasy Island columns and was quite frankly horrified that you chose to focus almost entirely on those fantasies that degrade, humiliate and are basically violence against women [Paper Doll, Ashlea Halpern, Dec. 28, 2006, and Jan. 4, 2007]. If it's the case that everyone you spoke to for research had the same violent tendencies, then we as a society are in trouble. But if it's the case that those are the stories you chose to focus on, then I think you used extremely poor judgment, and additionally did a huge disservice to the women of the city. Some of these guys sound like serial rapists/killers in the making.

And your friend Zhaira needs so many kinds of therapy I can't even begin to tell you. There is nothing wrong with having lots of sex. There is nothing wrong with having lots of sex with lots of people. There is a problem with your inherent sense of self-worth if you let lots of people fuck you at the same time on a frequent basis. Not to mention the diseases you might get. I don't think I'll be patronizing a Starbucks anytime soon; I would prefer not to have a side order of hepatitis with my latte. I'm sure that you don't care, but I'll not be reading the City Paper any longer.

Mare McHenry
Via e-mail

The correct question is why do people kill and injure one another. They have been doing so, and in great numbers, long before firearms were invented [Editor's Letter, "Hollowpoint," Duane Swierczynski, May 18, 2006]. At least in part, the root cause of a great deal of crime appears to be poverty. But don't expect your government to do anything about that. It costs money, which comes from those who are not poor. It's easier to blame violence on guns.

Ira Miller
Ennis, Texas