LEO welcomes letters that are brief (250 words max) and thoughtful. Ad hominem attacks will be ignored, and we need your name and a daytime phone number. Send snail mail to EROSIA, 640 S. Fourth St., Louisville, Ky. 40202. Fax to 895-9779 or e-mail to [email protected]. We may edit for length, grammar and clarity.
• Four photos in “A place to shine,” an article about the Studio2000 apprenticeship program in the Sept. 6 Arts and Entertainment Guide, were incorrectly credited. Julia Youngblood took the photos of Vicki Green and Bob Markert, of Kenyatta Hinkle and of Author Robinson’s work on a birdbath.
• A photo in the A&E Guide story about Wayside Expressions Gallery misidentified the artist in the accompanying photograph. The artist is Mel Taylor. LEO regrets the error.
• A story in the Aug. 30 issue about former New Orleans resident Bill Johnston said he and his wife lived in the Lakeview neighborhood. They actually lived in Uptown.
No More Billy?
Please translate the phrase “reallocation of resources” into plain English. Budget cuts? Pressure from advertisers/local heavies? In the same issue that media critic Rick Redding draws on Billy Reed’s experience to explain why Eric Crawford will need to be, well, more like Billy, it is announced (by someone named “Staff”) that after just eight months, LEO’s strongest writer is history (Sept. 6 issue). Billy Reed, who single-handedly, fearlessly and wittily blew the lid off the arena site debacle. What gives?
Billy, we hardly knew ye, at least as a LEO guy. Keep the truth coming in someone else’s pages.
Alternative to What?
Let me see if I can get this straight. Billy Reed is no longer on the LEO staff because of “reallocation of resources”? Do you mean he was fired? LEO used to be an alternative newspaper. When you resort to the use of corporate euphemisms, you are really not that much different from that Gannett-owned newspaper behemoth located on West Broadway. How sad.
Proof of Demolition
Matthew Fleitz’s letter asked to whom Paul Kopasz was referring when he said that the WTC controlled demolition hypothesis was becoming “harder and harder to deny.” (LEO, Aug. 30).
To this end, I have compiled a short list of just a few of those highly qualified individuals for whom the controlled demolition theory is the most compelling and probable. For the sake of brevity I have not included any of the rather large number of WTC survivors and eyewitnesses, such as William Rodriguez, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Louie Cacchioli, who have subscribed to the demolition hypothesis, some of whom have filed lawsuits over 9/11.
Steven E. Jones (Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, www.scholarsfor911truth.org); Kevin Ryan (former site manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel in the Twin Towers); Eric Douglas (New York City architect chair of the Independent Peer Review Committee for the NIST WTC, reports at www.nistreview.org); Brian Duncan (Fire Protection Engineering); Judson Witham (High Rise/Mid Rise/Low Rise construction/demolition); Michael Gass (Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb Disposal Technician); Victoria Ashley (architecture and physiology, 911research.wtc7.net); Rein A. Roos (airborne dust and aerosol specialist); Joseph M. Phelps (Structural Dynamicist Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers); Tom Spellman (civil engineering, architecture); Eric Hermanson (engineering physics, nuclear engineering, software architect); Nick Hull (particle physics, geocities.com/CapitolHill/); Peter Kirsh (forensic pathologist); Paul Landis (industrial engineering, author of “A Real 9/11 Commission”); Spero Larres (physics and mathematics, Rutgers University); Michael Lovingier (structural/environmental engineering); Doyle Winterton (civil engineering, structural engineering); Frank Carmen (Physics Ph.D., BYU); Michael Maguire (Mechanical engineering, Aeronautical engineering); Ted Muga (Naval aviator; commercial pilot; structural engineering); Jim Hoffman (scientist, mathematician and author, www.wtc7.net).
Keep Politics Out of Reviews
To Paul Kopasz and Alan Abbott:
I have read LEO for many years and I expect most articles to have a political slant. However, when you inject liberal political conspiracy theories into movie reviews, it may be time to rethink why I read your paper. You review a movie as a movie, not as a means to spread a political viewpoint.
Mr. Kopasz, I have not seen any of the ideas you discuss in the “mainstream” (regarding “World Trade Center” review in Aug. 16 LEO). The only places I have read about your views is on conspiracy blogs and liberal political sites like MoveOn.org. I don’t care what your political views are, but I shouldn’t have to find out when I read a movie review.
Mr. Abbott, your only excuse was that you reviewed a documentary concerning the electric car. I’m sorry the filmmaker could not make the point you wanted him to get across (maybe you should make a movie about the electric car). Maybe you should have mentioned that the electric cars sucked, the batteries sucked, the driving distance sucked and the recharge time sucked. If you would just read/watch about auto technology in Popular Science or on the History Channel (or a number of other outlets), you may learn that battery technology is still not up to par for the auto. Heck, battery technology is not up to par for PDAs. You may also learn that the hydrogen fuel cell is not ready to help us “now.” You talk about the killing of the electric car — have you heard about cars that run on batteries (electric) and small gas engines — they are called hybrid cars.
After reading your reviews, I have come to understand that I won’t get a true movie review from either of you (just political comment). I will continue to read LEO, but I will get my movie reviews from professional reviewers (just to let you know — the professional reviewers review movies based on the movie, not political hacks).
Mr. Kopasz, as a final point, you may believe what you want — the facts are that on Sept. 11, the United States was attacked (in a highly coordinated plan) by terrorists.
James Moore raised many good points in his Guest Commentary (LEO, Aug. 23), but it appears to me that he misused the term “time-limited.” Maybe he meant to say “space-limited,” instead.
One of the political arguments for the idea that “money is speech” goes like this, as I understand it. Money used to buy political ads on TV and radio should not be regulated because TV and radio are not space-limited. It’s said that the space available for these ads far exceeds demand when all the cable TV channels and various radio stations are taken into account.
This is not my idea, by the way. I think the major fallacy of this argument is its assumption that all TV channels and radio stations are equal. Access to the local NBC affiliate is considered equal with access to the Public Access channel. You and I know better than that. It’s the prime-time space on the major channels that really matters; this space is very limited.
In the real world of politics, money denies TV and radio access to most folks when it is not regulated. The folks with the most money buy all the space, thereby eliminating the opposing points of view.
Besides the space-limitations, we know that speech also has a “time-value.” Timing is everything, as the old saying goes. Saying your piece when it no longer matters to anyone is useless.
The May 31, 2005, Arena Task Force minutes recommend the book “High Stakes” to its membership. On the Web site for the book is this quote: “Unlike so many other cities around the country, Columbus citizens gave a firm ‘no’ to the proposal that public money be used to build an arena … Yet, both structures are now a permanent part of Columbus’s landscape. ‘High Stakes’ is the inside story of how a coalition of the city’s movers and shakers successfully did an end-run around the electorate to build these sports complexes.”
The non-profit Arena Authority is based on the claim that it will pay its way without contributions of public taxes. While this approach may circumvent the need for a public vote, it leaves the citizens as bystanders feeling unengaged and left out. Nonetheless, citizens would like to better understand the liabilities to the city and state taxpayers if the revenue projections are not realized. A vote on some aspect of the arena would certainly encourage public debate and ultimately develop the understanding and support needed for the public to buy into this, as well as future public works projects that are crucial to the welfare of Louisville and the Commonwealth.