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
BORN TO PUN...
Just who do you think you are? Is this the same credible newspaper that promised us Parking Free in November? After reading Todd Anthony's article about Bruce Springsteen, I get the impression that he knows nothing about the man, his music, or his songwriting style.
Also, let me explain to Mr. Anthony about the concept of change. Springsteen is no longer the 25-year-old vagabond singing about the perils of Spanish Johnny or the lonesome man who was "born with nothing and better off that way." He is now a husband and a 42-year-old father of two children. He realizes, unlike Mr. Anthony, that along with age comes change. It is people like Anthony whom Springsteen sings about in "Local Hero," people who made him king, made him pope, and then brought him the rope on which to hang himself.
As for the E-Streeters, Bruce has been playing with some of these guys since he was eighteen. Some marriages don't last that long! I understand that he is upset about the changing times. I'm sure that nostalgia is deep in people like himself. Sure, he probably played baseball back in high school, or once thought he had skin like leather and a diamond-hard look of a cobra. Perhaps he's felt that he's been lost in the flood once or twice - or even held up without a gun - but c'mon, pal, change is all around. Even Bruce admitted this long ago. "This boardwalk life is through," and Mr. Anthony "ought to quit this scene, too!" Perhaps just a little of that "Human Touch" is all he needs.
By the way, if Rosalita is still living with her father at her age, who would want her, anyway?
Kraig S. Weiss
North Miami Beach
...AND IT'S A HARD DWAYNE'S A-GONNA FALL
This is for Todd Anthony: It's alright, Ma, I'm only a critic.
Dwayne Edward Kelley
THE MR. PINHEAD MARCHING AND CHOWDER SOCIETY
I can put up with every single critique Mr. Pinhead (Rafael Navarro) makes on any movie he sees being a bad one (he is probably just an unhappy person). I can even put up with the bad puns and horrible little jokes he throws in with bad critique after bad critique. I go to the movies he says are bad and swore to myself if he ever did like a movie I would know to wait till it came on cable. But he's gone too far ("Saturday Night Weaver," May 27)!
I realize that Joe Gersten is the number-one topic of this bored society's interest now, but can't he leave Rosario Kennedy out of it? Sure, she has the worst luck with men and political positions, but the woman is also a mother of three children whom I care about, and so do a lot of other people. I am quite certain that they do not appreciate the way he slurs their mother's name all over the paper. I am even more certain that if the shoe were on the other foot and he saw his mother's name being crapped all over, especially by a lowly movie critic with no taste, he would write to the idiot, too. He can do his hateful and tasteless critiques, but leave the slander to the professional journalists.
HE STOOPS TO CONQUER
I have been a regular reader of New Times for more years than I can remember and generally give your publication high marks for its content and style. Although I don't know why I waste my precious time, I occasionally read some of the new and much-ballyhooed publications such as Wire, Antenna, and Postmortem.
These pseudo-newspapers are generally so hyped up, trivial, and meaningless that they are invariably disappointing to any half-intelligent reader. They are self-promoting publications serving to draw attention to an extremely small, smug, and self-obsessed group of very bored alcoholics who are so starved and desperate for attention that they will go to any length to get it.
I find it highly disturbing that New Times would consider it worthy of merit to lower its standards to try to compete with these arriviste publications at their abysmally low levels. Of particular concern is Tom Austin's column, "Swelter." I don't know what you are paying him, but it is surely too much.
I suggest that New Times refrain from participating in this disgusting charade of in-your-face sleazy journalism, where everyone tries to outdo one another by printing increasingly more shocking and offensive material. I am far from being a prude, but I do not feel that this type of material belongs in a newspaper read by so many. I would prefer to purchase or subcribe to adult publications when I wish to read about these topics.
Do these people Tom Austin endlessly writes about realize how obnoxious they are to the vast majority of the public? Who cares what these self-appointed arbiters of what's hip/trendy think? If they could stay sober long enough to do a reality check, perhaps they might be able to direct a bit of their squandered energy and resources toward doing something constructive to improve our community. But that, I'm afraid, would probably be asking too much.