Letters to the Editor
Ref and ready: Eric Dexheimer strikes again!
In "Tough Luck," his February 26 column defending so-called Toughman contests, Dexheimer reveals a total ignorance of boxing -- and of the reasons that many state legislatures have rightly sought to ban "Toughman" contests.
Colorado was the last of the fifty states to establish a boxing commission, which is deplorable in this day and age. The fact that the same legislature is now seeking to ban "Toughman" contests is a testimonial to how far we've come in just a few years.
In professional boxing, the state commission mandates that a doctor familiar with boxing be at ringside throughout the night's contests. Also, an ambulance (in some states, two) is required to be close to the ring in case of emergency. The referees in professional boxing have to pass a rigorous series of tests to become licensed. When you watch a professional boxing match and one fighter is getting the worst of it, you can see the referee closely watching the weaker fighter's eyes, waiting to jump in and stop the fight before too much damage is done. If there had been a trained, observant ref for that tragic fight in Florida, a woman's life would have been spared. The fact that many refs in pro fighting get booed for supposedly stopping fights too early is proof that pro refs would rather err on the side of caution. Just ask Richard Steele.
None of these basic safety measures are observed in "Toughman" fights. The fighters have no one to protect them. That is wrong, and it's sufficient reason to ban such exhibitions.
By the way, in boxing, the "idea of the sport" is not to inflict "pain and injury." The idea is to win, either by out-pointing your opponent or by knocking him out. The fact that Dexheimer would make such a ridiculous statement begs the question: Has Dexheimer ever attended a professional boxing match? If not, then why the hell is he writing about something he knows nothing about?
Don't fall for it: Having known the victim in Laura Bond's February 12 "After the Fall," it's clear that the reporter either ran up against her deadline or simply bought into the romantic spin Jim Farley fed her and didn't feel it necessary to let some facts get in the way of a good story. Or Bond's editor ran up against a deadline or saw the solution to an otherwise boring real-estate tale and let the reporter off the hook. Either way, we got treated to the unchallenged accounts of a two-time loser who knew Tracy Rollert for eight months. Using this logic, I expect we can soon read about why girls shouldn't be kicking field goals for Division I college football programs.
I did happen to uncover the couple of sentences that prove the reporter talked to Rollert's friends, but the space devoted to those views makes it obvious that they would have ruined a Valentine's Day tragi-romance.
Of course Farley is bummed out. Love can make people do stupid things, but it seems he was well on his way before he fell for Rollert. Knowing what we all know about their past, they appear to have been the poster couple for the Sid-n-Nancy Matchmaking Service. He'd been busted for drugs; she was admittedly addicted. They met in a bar; they planned their "special day" in a bar. Urban edifices have always been a magnet for the misdirected. I wonder how many other lives that have passed through the empty Evans school have been ruined?
Apparently, that doesn't matter. Instead, we got Romeo and Juliet, with Romeo copping a tearful plea.
I'd like to think I knew Tracy Rollert pretty well. When I heard about her death, I was shaken, because I haven't had many friends die prematurely. Sadly, though, I was hardly fazed. After reading this story, I guess a more appropriate reaction should have been my crying out "Unfair!" Or did I entirely miss the point? This was about Westword using Rollert as a martyr in the fight against urban blight, right? My bad.
Drunk tank: Okay, I have read some pretty stupid, sexist things in Westword, and I have read some excellent articles as well. I may add that none of them have been from Dave Herrera, who appears to not actually know what bands actually play at the good venues in town (here's a clue: They don't pay to play, anywhere), but don't get me started on that subject. In this instance, I am writing in response to the incredibly ignorant, sexist and downright misogynistic Drunk of the Week column by Patrick Osborn in the February 19 issue.
Let me clue you in, Mr. Osborn. The year is 2004. Many women love sports, play sports and, in fact, make their living playing, writing about and coaching sports. Not all women attended the Creative Memories seminar. You say that if someone was not aware that so many games were on at once, then they are, "no offense, a woman." Well, I take offense. You don't care whether you enrage, alienate and belittle half of the world population, including your co-workers. You say women are genetically incapable of enjoying football, and you state this simply because a woman suggested she found a man attractive in his uniform? Why can't she enjoy the game and enjoy the sight of physically fit men in tight clothing? You see, Mr. Osborn, women can do many things that men can't -- and one of them is multi-task.
I take offense to so many portions of your article that it's difficult to narrow them down. I find it even more incredible that Westword, a generally liberal-minded paper, would employ such an obvious male chauvinist pig, who does damage to his community by perpetuating myths of gender inequity. I suppose you subscribe to the theory that men can't help but rape women because they are genetically programmed to do so, believing it is up to women to keep themselves safe, as men have no control over their urge to spread their seed. I sincerely hope you do not breed and pass on these archaic ideas to your children.
Further, in today's pluralistic society, it is possible for someone -- man or woman -- to have a wide variety of interests. It is ludicrous to speculate that because of one interest, it is impossible to fully appreciate another. You will most likely brush this letter off as the ranting of one of those damned feminists. We have gained ground in so many areas, but men like you keep this society unequal and threatening for women. I pity any woman who becomes involved with you. Evolve.
Rogue agent: Dave Herrera's "Bill to Last," in the February 19 issue, has to be the most one-sided, biased piece of shit I have ever read! Do you really edit what your so-called writers write?
To make it worse, you have the audacity to actually print the words "He's expanded his range, augmenting his larynx-shredding scream theater with Geoff Tate-style falsetto trills and modulations." Comparing Terrell to Tate of Queensrche? What the fuck? Never, never, never could Bill ever be in Geoff Tate's class! Put the fucking crack pipe down.
Has Dave Herrera ever actually heard Rogue? If so, he needs to get his ears checked, because there is no possible way of getting screaming confused with a four-octave singer who was originally trained in opera, for Christ's sake.
I'm glad that you finally put a local band on the cover, but why Rogue? It is not at all representative of the hard-rock music scene in Denver. Why not Love.45, Drug Under or some up-and-coming band? Why those fucking self-centered, drug-addicted drunk slobs? Did Bill hook Dave up with some of his infamous "Rogue titty bitches"?
Let's set the record straight: Bill does not do everything for the music scene in Denver. I'm sure I'm not the only musician who is pissed off that he claimed he did. Rogue just happens to be the oldest band around that is still together. You'd have to be dead or have to have just moved here to have never heard of them.
via the Internet
The same old Storey: I just read Dave Herrera's February 19 Beatdown, in which he once again mentions Nina Storey. And again, I am wondering why he chooses to try to compliment someone with daggers. (By the way, not many people can get through a whole article, so saving something until the end is fruitless.) The first article Herrera wrote was not about Nina at all, but a laughable attempt of his to be...clever? creative? While he admitted that Nina was actually a pretty cool, genuine person, he proved himself to be an arrogant journalist who needed to do a bit more research.
I was under the impression that his column was about music -- which is a product of the musician, not the musician herself. While he concluded that Ms. Storey is, in fact, the "real deal," he doesn't give nearly enough credit to her talent. In an industry that is filled with self-indulgence and fabrication, Nina remains raw and genuine. She is captivating; she gives to the audience in ways that are physically undeniable. You have no choice but to surrender to her passion and her soul. If she is someone Herrera believes in, why not just encourage people to listen to the music? It speaks for itself.
It is disheartening to realize that people find comfort in the slander of others -- even more disappointing that an obviously intelligent person like Herrera contributes to this, seeming to believe, I suppose, that the only possibility for success lies therein.
Bare bore: Regarding Patricia Calhoun's "Boob Tube," in the February 5 issue:
The Super Bowl halftime performance didn't offend me morally nearly as much as it offended me intellectually. Certainly it was crude, but worse in my book is that it was boring, sophomoric crap. Like so much of what passes as entertainment these days, there was nothing about it that could be described as interesting, smart, original or creative. It is not surprising that these performers go for shock value when they are so lacking in artistic value. They've got to do something to get our attention. The goal seems to be to titillate; how unfortunate that none of that titillation is aimed at that so-neglected organ, the brain.
We should be less concerned about too much sexual content in pop culture, and much more concerned about too little intellectual content. It is upon the latter that we should focus our outrage. The mind-numbing vapidity of so much of what is served up as entertainment is a much greater danger to our children than being exposed to a bare breast.
Pray as you go: Amen to Keith Badgett's letter in the February 12 issue: Focus on your own damn family! I could not have spoken more eloquently myself, and I usually am not at a loss for words.
Design of the times: Thanks for publishing Michael Paglia's item about the Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design ("Promises and Threats," January 22) and for putting some heat on "Mr. President" and his performance here. As a student, I feel he cares about what he wants and not what the student body wants -- even though we pay his check. The staff presents him as a friend to go talk to, but that is all a mirage in my book.
Name withheld on request
Get the Weekly Newsletter
Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.