Letters: Getting Personal, Sub Spending, Atlas Shrugged, You’re All Robots

Getting Personal

6 min read
Share ::
You used to have the best personal ads in the business. I especially miss the "lesbian stalker" who used to ask a different woman every week to meet her in a dark corner of the park. Now, dear Alibi personals, I brood for you in that same dark corner. Oh … is that a vibrator? Oh, thank goodness it’s just a squirrel. OMG, no it isn’t, no it isn’t! What the hell Alibi ?


Publisher’s note: Hang in there—our new personals system will go live soon and be totally free to use. Sign up to be alerted at personals.alibi.com!

Letters: Mini Issues Mini Issues

[Re: Council Watch, " The Mini Subs," April 21-27] In her coverage of the "mini police substation" issue, Carolyn Carlson concluded, "There are plenty more important public safety issues in the city." I don’t disagree, however, Ms. Carlson may not be aware that the City of Albuquerque has a city objectives process by which we establish capital spending priorities. The city has invested millions of dollars in mini substations that are not very well utilized. The discussion at the April 18 meeting was about the administration’s non-responsiveness to an adopted budget objective. Additionally, it is an important public safety issue if limited resources are being directed to under-utilized buildings, particularly when the city faces another tight budget.

Letters: Condensed, Dramatized Outline Condensed, Dramatized Outline

[Re: Film Review, Atlas Shrugged: Part 1, April 21-27] I’m always surprised when movie-goers are disappointed that a movie failed to fully flesh out every nuance of a novel. Would anyone sit through it if it did? A novel possesses the necessary form with which to delve into the mindset of a character; movies may indicate, suggest only.

The trouble with most movies is that they’re made both for the audience that has not read the book as well as trying to placate the purists who expect it to capture every lick of the book.

I have read and taught "Atlas Shrugged" several times, and I thought the movie did a fairly good job of capturing the sweep and crunch of themes, imagery and characterization. It will draw many into read, studying and discussing the book.

Just one caveat: Maybe I’m wrong, but if Ayn Rand truly advocates laissez faire capitalism, isn’t that the primary cause of the financial "meltdown" this country and others have recently suffered?

Another warning: Just as someone once warned when discussing Freudian symbolism, "sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." Rand is a master at writing scintillating dialogue that evinces sharply defined character, conflict and theme. Her metaphors and similes are so evocative, they ignite symbolism in the book. There’s a real danger in making too much of ideas—especially once wishful thinking enters the arena.

Letters: Film Review Shrugged Film Review Shrugged

While I generally appreciate Mr. O’Leary’s cinematic evaluations, I must express my displeasure regarding his review of A tlas Shrugged: Part 1 [April 21-27]. For a number of reasons I was dismayed to learn of an attempt to [re-create] Ayn Rand’s book in film version (even in three parts, as is alleged) given the scope of the book and the complex nature of the its subject matter. When I discovered that Mr. O’Leary had written a review, I was intrigued and eager for his assessment as a means in which to evaluate the ease in which my 10 dollar bill and I should part ways to see this movie.

Unfortunately, instead of reviewing the film for both quality and content, it seems that Mr. O’Leary has transformed the movie review into a diatribe about the (in his mind) implausibility and (whine) unfairness of Rand’s socioeconomic commentary itself, rather than giving me any pertinent details about the movie.

Having learned nothing from this review about the actual movie, I am still unsure as whether or not I would enjoy this film. What I am NOT, however, is unsure about Mr. O’Leary’s opinion of the book upon which it is based. I come away with insight into Mr. O’Leary’s political and economic leanings—subject matter I do not find useful when deciding whether or not to watch a movie.

I am not interested in movie reviews as book reviews or poorly disguised soapboxes.


Film Editor’s note: In addition to whining about the unfairness of Rand’s socioeconomic commentary, I also noted that the film is "unintentionally hilarious" and "hardly the treatment devotees of Atlas Shrugged have been waiting 60-odd years for." I called the film a "slipshod production" that is "directed like a cheesy Lifetime movie of the week." I pointed out that "the starpower is notably weak. The script is cartoonish. The dialogue is wooden." I thought I was being clear and all. But since literate folks like Ashley Harvey here missed the point, lemme spell it out: The movie sucks.

Letters: You Can’t Fool Me, Robot You Can’t Fool Me, Robot

[Re: Blog, “The Daily Word with Obama’s Hostility, Longer Penises and No Birther Bill,” April 19] “Why should a PRESIDENT not be required to prove his citizenship?”

Presidential candidates ALREADY ARE required to be natural-born citizens. They just don’t have to prove it to the state of Arizona by submitting circumcision records.

They also don’t have to prove they’re not from a mirror Earth on the far side of the sun or that they’re not vampires.

Other birthers might like to see the high resolution images of the goddamn birth certificate right here (bit.ly/ObamaBC)
. Of course, who’s to say they’re not fakes? For that matter, who’s to say you’re not all robots and I’m the only real human in the world? Aha! I fucking knew it!

Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via email to letters@alibi.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter. Word count limit for letters is 300 words.

1 2 3 455