A Well-Respected Man
Dear Cory Cheney,
I can't say that I've followed your column from the first, as I don't recall when I first started reading Urban Tulsa.
I'd swear it's been ten years or so but tempus fugit ever faster.
I read that ("The Last Picture Show" in July 30--August 5) was your last column and I regret that. I agree completely that it was a column first and movie reviews if mood permitted, and I have enjoyed it very much. We agree and disagree on various movies, but I *always* enjoyed your commentary.
I just saw your newest issue and am shocked that you would print a picture, twice of a bare breasted woman. I'm not sure if this is even legal for a free magazine, I intend to find out, but I know it is inappropriate.
All are Welcome
Thank you for your feature article on nudism in Oklahoma and Oaklake Trails. Social nudism/naturism at a family resort is an entirely healthy, relaxing, and safe experience. And it's gaining popularity--as young adults face the stresses of their day-to-day routines and an unhealthy demands for physical appearance and body acceptance, more and more are finding the experience of visiting a nudist resort enlightening.
One will learn and see for themselves that our bodies are just bodies--complete with "imperfections"--everyone has 'em, and everyone is just fine as they are. And thank you for helping dispel some of the rumors regarding Oaklake Trails. It's not a club of swingers and fetishists and voyeurs; instead, a visitor will be welcomed by friendly folks of all ages and backgrounds--infant to elderly, schoolteachers, public servants, doctors, clergy, and families.
Inappropriate behavior is not tolerated, and children are exceptionally safe--to paraphrase one staff member, the people are expected to behave the same way as they would at Big Splash, Disneyland, or any other family attraction.
Nudism, of course, doesn't appeal everyone, and that's understandable. But thank you for portraying the lifestyle and Oaklake Trails accurately, and in such a positive light.
Debunk the Clunk
I have to weigh in on the "cash for clunkers" program. I have read as much of this bill as humanly possible so as to be well informed before writing this letter. I will state that I own an automotive repair and maintenance facility in Tulsa and have spent the majority of my life in the automotive industry.
This is taken directly from the bill and I did not modify or change any wording, spelling or grammer: Eligibility of Trade-in Vehicles, The CARS Act establishes four criteria for an eligible trade-in vehicle. The tradein vehicle must: (1) be in drivable condition; (2) have been continuously insured, in accordance with State law, and registered in the same owner's name for the one-year period immediately prior to the trade-in; (3) have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of tradein9 and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, also be from a model year not later than model year 2001; and (4) have a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less,10 if it is a passenger automobile, a category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck. 119 This means that all pre-model year 1984 vehicles, and most model year 1984 vehicles, are not eligible as trade-in vehicles.
(I could not find footnotes 10 or 11).
First the criterion for a car to qualify does not describe a "clunker" in the real world sense. Here is where the whole thing goes south in a hurry. Vehicles OLDER than 25 years are not eligible. Unless they have been restored or highly modified 25 year old cars are most assuredly "clunkers". The time period from 1979 to about 1990 is considered the "Dark Ages" of automobile production in the US. Most cars produced in that time were made with the cheapest materials available and had to meet outrageous EPA mandates creating amazingly complicated systems for cleaning up the tailpipe emissions of these vehicles.
Overwhelmingly people that drive real clunkers; you know the ones: missing headlights or broken taillights with tape over the missing lens, busted windows with plastic taped over, bald tires, etc. These people can't afford a new car to begin with. So obviously this program will only benefit the portion of the population that can either buy a new car outright or are willing to get themselves into even deeper debt to own a new car.
Next we have the fact that people are trading in perfectly useable, saleable vehicles.
Case in point: A friend said to me he was turning in his 1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager with 180,000 miles on it. Vehicles produced in the last 18-20 years have been designed to give at least 200,000 miles of service with regular maintenance. My friend is very diligent about maintaining this van and it could easily go another five years. Granted he will receive a "credit" of $3500.00 towards the purchase of a new vehicle which is maybe $1000.00 more than if he sold it outright. However if he sold it to someone or if he did a regular trade-in this is what would happen. 1) He sells it outright and someone who can't afford a new car gets a perfectly good serviceable vehicle to drive for another three to five years. This person would have to occasionally repair it or perform maintenance on it which would stimulate the economy through them visiting a repair facility or a parts store to purchase whatever is needed to accomplish this. At the end of the vehicles life it would then go to an auto salvage and be dismantled and sold off in pieces further stimulating the economy (not to mention the "green" factor of recycling). 2) He trades it in and the dealer then sends it to auction where it is sold to a used car lot. The used car lot then repairs any minor problems (in most cases farming the work out to a repair shop) and then re-sells the vehicle to: yet again, someone who can't afford a brand new vehicle and the process continues from that point until the end of the vehicles life.
Instead we have people turning in perfectly good vehicles that the dealership will be required by this law to disable (this means ruining good engines and transmissions) and remove any and all environmentally harmful materials (excluding some lead items) before having the vehicles crushed. In turn most of the crushed vehicles will be sold to steel mills in other countries like China so that they can be remade into all sorts of products for us to buy continuing the flow of US dollars overseas. We also have the loss of economic stimulus by cutting out the used car dealer, the auto parts store and the repair facility.
If this is all about fuel mileage then there are things we can do to the cars we have to increase fuel mileage.
1) Check your tire pressures weekly. (We have started doing this on our customers cars regardless of what it is in for.)
2) Replace your air and fuel filters regularly (dirty filters cause a vehicle to work harder).
3) Slow down; the fact is if you drive 65mph instead of 75mph most cars will use a minimum of 5% less fuel.
These are just a few things you can do to save gas.
I strongly urge anyone considering turning in your vehicle to this program to weigh your options and to make the right decision. Do we really want to use our tax dollars this way?
Is this really stimulating the economy? Or is this just another "feel good" policy meant to placate the masses.
Samuel H. Newton Jr.
Take Back the Rainbow
I find the Slowpoke cartoon (so called) in the July 16-22 issue of the UTW one of the most offensive pieces of pornography I have ever seen in print. This is a public magazine made available free to many of the family restaurants where any child or youth can pick them up and look at them while waiting for a table or take it home with them.
I don't know the laws but I intend to send my copy to our city attorney. I cannot believe it is "ok" to have such garbage available to anyone. I don't read your magazine, another brought this to my attention. And I plan to bring it to the attention of anyone I think might help. If the city attorney does nothing I will send it to state attorney Drew Edmonson, a relative of my relative. I also plan to send it to anyone else I think might help, perhaps Channel 2 or 6. Certainly it needs to be made public because I don't believe nothing can be done in our basically conservative and straight great state of OK.
If nothing is done there is One who someday can and will do something. Then God help you. You probably don't believe he exists but just because you don't believe doesn't change the face.
- Mrs. Betty L. Cartwright
P.S. By the way I also consider this "thing" very offensive and insulting to the straight people of this country and we do far outnumber the gays regardless of what your liberal media want the people to believe. And if this was an insult to the homosexuals (they are not gay. Gay is a beautiful word meaning happy, that has been ruined for us straights, and they are not happy) you can bet the ACLU would already have you in court.
Shoots from the Hip
President Obama has confirmed my fear of having a president with terrible judgment.
His recent accusation that the Cambridge, MA police "acted stupidly" in the arrest of a black college professor shows Obama makes decisions without gathering all the facts and analyzing the situation. He automatically took the side of a fellow black, and berated the police, without any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the event. He should not be commenting on local police matters. This only weakens the office of President of the United States.
President Obama has trouble thinking correctly and makes poor decisions when he is away from his aides, is not reading from a prepared speech and does not have a teleprompter in front of him. Also, he has exhibited a tendency to "shoot from the hip." Do you trust him to take the 3am call? I don't.
- Donald A. Moskowitz, Londonderry, NH
Share this article: