Andy Stott coined the term "Arborgeddon"

ARBORGEDDON

In your latest number you ask, “Who knows who coined the term ‘Arborgeddon?’” (Artvoice v5n42) I do—it was me. I coined it on the morning of Friday, October 13 and have as my witnesses an employee of the Albright-Knox, a UB professor, a student of political science, my wife, my two children and my dog, any one of whom may have passed it on to their friends and thence into wider world. Please rectify your mistake by printing a large picture of me doing a double thumbs up on the cover of your next issue.

Andy Stott

Buffalo

WEIRDER THAN WEIRD

I believe Artvoice must change the name of the column “News of the Weird.” The caption suggests strange, extraordinary, odd. No matter how strange, odd, creepy, fantastic the stories are, they can’t top what appears in the so-called mainstream media. If the following two examples aren’t weird, then I no longer know the meaning of what it is to be a civilized, rational human being.

Last week on Bush’s weekly radio address he assured the nation, “our goal in Iraq is clear and unchanging: our goal is victory.” Is this a mantra? If we repeat it enough will something wonderful happen? There has never been a clearly stated goal from the beginning: a beginning of a war that was to last no more than six months and is now approaching the length of time we spent in World War II. Wasn’t that the reason Bush could not face Cindy Sheehan and tell her what “our noble cause” was? Are we just to ignore the carnage now taking place in Iraq and the civil war that is fermenting and growing day by day? Are we, as a civilized nation, to ignore the loss of life of our troops as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Do we just ignore the fact that this seems to be a war without end? Don’t think: just keep repeating victory!

Additionally, we now have the junior senator from this state trying to position herself against the war because that will probably win votes. (NB: Please ignore her previous votes for war.) To my horror I find that as she decides that this war is bad; she has determined that torture may be all right in some cases. The New York Daily News carried a story on October 12, 2006. In it they stated Clinton met with their editorial board on the 11th and she told them torture is acceptable in some circumstances.

“Again I think the president has to take responsibility. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting.”

This reporting, according to Clinton, can be top secret. Does she presume we will just gloss over this belief of hers as long as it is only used in some special cases and somewhere in the bowels of government there will be a report outlined in red and marked “TOP SECRET” that lists the grimy details? Since she and the president seem to agree on this standard for torture, do we now no longer have the right to call our nation civilized?

Our president believes we have a clearly stated goal in Iraq and victory (whatever that is) is possible; our senator believes torture is permissible in some circumstances. You tell me. Is that weird?

Joan Healy

East Aurora