By Michael E. Miller
By Allie Conti
By David Villano
By Jose D. Duran
By Michael E. Miller
By Allie Conti
By Kyle Swenson
By Luther Campbell
BEST JAGUAR FARE
Opinions are opinions, but facts are facts.
It was obvious that whoever wrote the selection of Real Foods as "Best Health Food Store" in the 1992 Best of Miami issue does not have his facts in order. Real Foods is a fine store and is certainly worthy of note, but to print that prices at Unicorn Village Market are higher is a nonfact.
The fact that Unicorn Village gets its fair share of Jaguars and Mercedes (you forgot Rolls-Royces) is true, but we also get a greater share of far lesser cars - even used Yugos. Our prices are well known for being the lowest in the industry. Somehow your writer assumed that because we have high-priced cars parked outside, we have high prices inside.
I would invite your writer to buy a bag or two of food at Real Foods and then buy those same items at Unicorn Village. I'm certain my point will be well taken. Your readers already know. It's high time New Times knows too!
Ronald M. Funt, director of marketing
Unicorn Village Market
BEST BROAD PARAMETERS
The New Times 1992 Best of Miami issue has taken you to a new level of sexism! "Best Place to Break Up with Your Significant Other" - Hooters - obviously you think only men dump women. Where should a girl go to dump a guy so she doesn't have to hear his death and suicide threats?
Three categories of best strippers! This is as stupid as having a category of best place to see blacks mistreated! At the very least you should provide a best place to see men naked. "Best Topless Beach" - why no mention of where to go to see best male bodies? Why the reference to best bar to see G-strings without a category for best bar for looking at male bodies? Even your "Best $5 Haircut" had to throw in a reference to Playboy!
Wake up, New Times, this is the 1990s. Either drop the constant reference to women as sexual objects or make equal time for your female readers!
YO CHUCK - GET WITH THE POGROM!
I am writing this letter because of an item Chuck Shepherd wrote in the "News of the Weird" on March 18 about "the white supremacist group the Aryan Nations." Aryan Nations is not a white "supremacist" group. Aryan Nations did not rob armored cars in the Eighties, or any time. The group that he is talking about is the Order/Bruder Schweign. They did more than just rob armored cars! If he is going to write about these groups, he should get his facts straight. If he wants, he can ask me, I'll help.
The March 4 edition of New Times featured an article by Steven Almond about the implementation of Project Triggerlock in the Southern District of Florida ("Trigger Happy"). The thrust of the article was that the cases prosecuted under Project Triggerlock are consistently of poor quality and that the penalties upon conviction of the underlying offenses are too severe. The article cited only a few cases in which there were acquittals while toatlly neglecting to consider the many more cases in which the juries returned guilty verdicts.
As to Federal Public Defender Jim Gailey's criticism that there is a general paucity of evidence in many Triggerlock cases, coupled with a deficient investigation that precipitates an indictment: No responsible and ethical prosecutor could reasonably disagree with the need to carefully and responsibly screen the cases presented for prosecution by law enforcement agents. Triggerlock cases are no different. As to how those cases were screened prior to my appointment as interim U.S. attorney, I have no comment nor will I address any complaint. Since my appointment, however, I, along with the supervisors in charge of our Triggerlock cases, have made certain that each Triggerlock case is closely reviewed to ensure, first, that it is a case which should be prosecuted at all, and second, that it is one properly included in the federal Triggerlock program. During the past 90 days, a total of sixteen cases have been presented to this office for prosecution, of which only eight have been found to be acceptable for prosecution under Triggerlock.
Mr. Gailey and his staff also pose the argument that the statutorily required sentence of fifteen years for a convicted armed career criminal is too severe. I believe, however, that such an argument reflects a position completely at odds and out of touch with the mainstream concerns of society. The legislative history behind the statute reflects the concern, indeed the outrage, of Congress that the same offenders repeatedly were being arrested for victimizing the community, and, that they were routinely in possession of dangerous firearms having no discernible purpose other than causing the injury or death of another human being. The law mandating this fifteen-year sentence takes into account the dangerous and violent proclivities of these individuals and seeks to incarcerate them before they can once again victimize the community.
Law enforcement, especially in the area of violent crime, is usually relegated to investigating crimes which have already occurred. The armed-career-criminal statute, however, recognizes that no good can possibly be derived by a felon, thrice convicted of narcotics offenses or violent crimes, who is in possession of a gun.