Letters

Mercury is intelligent, nonmainstream paper

I read two Las Vegas newspapers: the Mercury and CityLife. Recently, I have stopped reading CityLife because they feel no shame in printing articles that are racist toward white people as well as very narrow-minded and politically one-sided. I now read the Mercury solely, because I feel your paper is funny, interesting and it does not try so hard to be ultra-liberal. I was happy to see in the Jan. 6 issue the Left Brain/Right Brain segment on Social Security. I don't like to read mainstream papers, so I am glad there is at least one intelligent one out there I can still pick up. Keep up the good work.

--Chris Haraway

Little Richard is no 'withered fairy'

Would-be writer and mentally challenged journalist Newt Briggs should go back to the first grade. What is the reason and purpose for insulting rock star Little Richard by calling him a "withered fairy"? Little Richard has brought entertainment to millions. What has Newt Briggs ever done?

Is this what the Mercury calls "cutting-edge" journalism? You don't have to use filthy language or cruel insults to get your point across. I don't expect the Mercury to be a feelgood newspaper like that piece of crap called the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Start using your brains instead of resorting to juvenile four-letter words that cater to imbeciles who don't read newspapers to begin with.

--Mark Dale

Slam of local band was unprofessional

I have lost all my dwindling respect in the type of journalism that comes from your publication. In your last week's Listening Station [Jan. 6], you presented to your readers five CDs that you were supposedly going to review. However, only four of those CDs were fortunate enough to be granted those reviews while you disrespected the fifth. You simply placed a Post-It note on Tripsitter's California Son CD, which said, "There is no conceivable justification for this." How is this responsible journalism? This is not a review. You make a statement with nothing to back it up.

Not only do you disrespect the band, you disrespect your readers for not explaining yourself for your malicious and potentially defamatory statement about them and their music. You seem to make a statement that Tripsitter's music is so horrible that it does not even merit a review. Instead, it takes the form of irresponsible and unintelligent journalism. It shows to the readers that your reviewers are unable to review all types of music or that they are too lazy to intelligently convey their thoughts. Obviously, their musical expertise is now in question. Maybe your reviewers don't have what it takes to properly convey their opinions to their readers. This reflects on the reviews of the other CDs in Listening Station--how am I supposed to take those reviews seriously if your writers don't have the competence and ability to properly review one of its subjects?

Musicians put themselves out there to be scrutinized by their peers, but they also deserve to be treated fairly. This stunt may be an attempt to be hip and humorous, but you do have the responsibility to your readers to explain yourselves and what you write. As much as you may not have liked Tripsitter's music, they deserve an explanation. Tripsitter is a local band that has worked hard and paid their dues just like everyone else. They deserve the same respect as anyone else. A critic's role is not only to pan and praise an art, but to also give that art its respect and recognition. If you even had given only a paragraph of what you thought was wrong with the CD to incite such an action, you would have been giving Tripsitter its due respect.

Your handwritten statement on that Post-It note is so completely false that it could be construed as libelous. Every form of music IS conceivably justified. Music is an art that is so subjective that every style has its audience. Maybe Tripsitter's music was too complex for your writers to professionally and properly review the CD's contents. Whatever the reason, your action last week does not reflect nicely on your publication and it simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge, integrity and respect for everyone involved, for yourselves, your publication, your victims and your readers. I challenge your writers to give Tripsitter its respect and actually review the CD. And maybe my respect for your publication will be restored.

--Melvin Ladera

U.S. must do more to prevent mad cow

The callous reaction by the USDA and the U.S. meat industry to the discovery of a third case of Canadian mad cow disease clearly places profits before public health.

The USDA announced that the U.S. still intends to lift the suspension on import of Canadian cattle imposed two years ago. The American Meat Institute, which finds Canadian beef more profitable than the domestic product, declared that the discovery is "no cause for concern."

Measures taken by U.S. authorities to protect public health have been grossly inadequate. Only a tiny fraction of cattle slaughtered is tested, whereas Japanese and European authorities test every animal and find many more cases. The 1997 FDA ban on feeding infected body parts to other cows has lacked adequate enforcement. During slaughter, muscle tissue used in steaks, hamburgers, hot dogs and beef fillings is sprayed with bits of brain and spinal column tissues, traditional carriers of the disease.

Folks in the beef industry should seek a more secure and socially redeeming career. For the rest of us it's not too late for a New Year's resolution to replace beef in our diet with vegetables, fruits and grains.

--Calvin Southerton