Letters to the Editor

The Nutty Professor

Rocky Mountain highballs: What can I say? Patricia Calhoun's "Conspiracy Nuts," her July 4 column "in search of the lost boys of summer," was just about the funniest thing I've read in months. In a PC world where everything seems so dire at times, I can always count on Westword to provide that unique, untamed, no-smoke-and-mirrors-and-other-assorted-bullshit perspective on real-life, local scenarios.

Simply put: You rock! I loved this article. Sure, it didn't provide me with a more heightened sense of awareness on the state of the globe. Sure, it didn't uncover some insidious corporate and/or political and/or religious scandal. But it sure did give me a good laugh, and for that I thank you. You took what many would consider to be a very "sensitive" situation and reported on it factually and, more importantly, with humor.

I'm most appreciative of how you exposed John Temple for the idiot (some would argue that "liar" might be a more appropriate term) that he truly is (he must be a fool if he thinks we're buying that "shadow" story). I don't care what his Rocky Mountain News poll shows (hell, based on recent events, he probably wouldn't even recognize his own pole if it appeared on the front page of a major, local publication). And what's up with him showing these supposed "proof-pics" to his eleven-year-old kid? What would be her point of reference when it comes to identifying a grown man's right nut? Oh, well. No matter.

Anyway, sincere thanks for a wonderful article. Keep up the excellent work.

Name withheld on request

The ball's in his court: Patricia Calhoun may have thought her "Conspiracy Nuts" was humorous; I found it sophomoric. With all that's going on in the world, surely she has bigger concerns than men's genitalia showing when they wear shorts.

Will she give equal time to the topic of women in shorts?

Harris Stein
via the Internet

The thigh's the limit: It seems that women are going out of their way to complain about the "lost boys of summer," a euphemism for testicles visible through leg openings in men's shorts. In fact, it does take some effort to notice these exposed "ham and eggs"; one has to be purposefully looking to spot such an exposure. The photograph of Mr. Fred Finlay on the cover of the News is proof of this. Somebody had to be looking extremely closely to spot what might, maybe possibly, be an exposure of a scrotum.

On the other hand, us guys love to see the sights offered by young women in their prime. What man doesn't delight in seeing the bottom portion of a young girl's buttocks slightly exposed beneath a pair of short shorts? And what man does not enjoy seeing a glimpse of a lovely pair of firm young breasts partly exposed by summer outfits? But then there are the women who cannot seem to acknowledge that they are past their prime. You've seen them: cellulite-laden thighs exposed by far too short shorts, and breasts that would hang straight down were it not for the rigid support of a brassiere.

Give us a break, ladies: If you're over 25, look in the mirror before you put on an outfit designed for fit and trim high school girls. Spare us the sight. After all, we don't have to purposefully look up the legs of your shorts to be turned off; the blubberous thighs are there for all to see.

Kenneth C. Beaudrie

Fat City

Fit to be tried: You managed to serve up most of them in Eric Dexheimer's July 4 "No Sweat," so let's take a big, sloppy bite out of a couple of myths about fat, fitness and kids.

First of all, current "expert" opinions on what makes a person overweight are generalized and/or politicized to the point of uselessness. For example, by most such scales, as a six-foot-tall (adult) male, my optimal "healthy" weight is about 175-180 lbs. But by the time you reach your early twenties, you have all the muscle you is gonna get, and sans Schwarzeneggerian drugs, you can only bulk up so far; genetics is genetics. So the only way I can go over about 165 is to adopt a strict Bud and Ding Dongs diet and pack on the fat -- oops, I mean "love handles."

Another chunky myth is that our kids are gonna do what they're gonna do -- and eat what they are gonna eat -- and we, as mere parents, are powerless to do anything about it. Onion sauce, I say! The two primary causes of fat kids are Mom and Dad. Parents who allow their kids to plant themselves in front of a screen and stuff their faces with fatty, high-carb and sugary snacks get fat kids. If you supersize your kids at McDucks and The Bell five times a week, your son is gonna be "husky." If you have a very progressive "open pantry" policy in your home, your daughters will pay double fares on certain airlines. Some parents, it's true, want fat boys so Dad can relive his own gridiron glory days through his obese son. Most parents of fat kids, however, are just plain ignorant of what causes fat kids and/or are too lazy to do anything about it.

KEEP WESTWORD FREE... Since we started Westword, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Denver, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.