Are you saying we're fat?: Your writer has simply not done their homework ["Playing Pool," Matt Smith, July 2]. City pools were created for city residents. That means Everyone. If they'd really looked into it, they find that yes, some lane swimming is set aside for teams. Those teams are open to anyone. The users pay extra money to help fund the pool. Attendance and income for the city goes up during those times. But more importantly they'd find that lane swimming is VERY limited. There are strict hours, and time schedules are adhered to rigidly. The majority of the use hours at the public pools [are] for open swimming.
Why should open swim time be any more important than exercise swimming? Anyone can swim during lane time as long as they sign the forms. Fitness usage is just as important as play time. What really should be happening in this obese lazy culture is to direct kids while they are young to use the pool for more than play. They need to be using it to stay fit, be healthy, AND have fun.
Yes the city has totally let these facilities go to seed. They are Filthy and unhealthy. This city, like your writer, is more concerned about welfare and equality, and every special group under the sun, than it is in basic necessities. Since when were the pools designed specifically for just people who want to float and play? They were designed to fill the varying needs of all. Our parks, swimming pools, roads, and other basics are falling apart. In the quest for improving our city we need to be reminded that equality does not mean special rights for special groups -- it means equal rights for everyone.
In this case, yes, lane time and exercise times should be equal to half the open time of the pools.
We prefer to use child labor; you can fit more of them in a room: "[A] deceptively innocuous-looking slide rule" ["Slides Rule," Night Crawler, July 2]. This one phrase (pleonasm, anyone?) sticks in my craw like a (typically) bad San Francisco meal. And then, rereading the article, sentence by sentence, I wonder more and more, is the ability to speak Enlish [sic] at all a requirement for working for your shitty little paper? (Do you save that much money by hiring Bulgarians or Sri Lankans to write your articles?)
May we suggest soap: Thankx fer doing your piece on Hal ["The Wizard of Ass Has Spoken!," July 30]. Hal was and is a huge influence on what I do today. I remember the day that the Dead Sea opened when I opened the SubGenius book as a kid, trapped carless and clueless in a Long Island suburb. Later I read a Hal Robins comic in the Happy Mutant Handbook. When I moved out here and actually met and shared the stage with Hal, a warm and fuzzy feelin' washed over me that no shower could clean. Hal deserves so much. Thank you.
Bet you don't get to decide SportsCenter's Top 10, either: Just curious. What happened with the cover story last week ["The Wit & Wisdom of Glenn Dickey," July 23]? That Glenn Dickey piece was awful. Sports fans like myself are used to great journalism. Because baseball is a boring sport that you have to grow up with to appreciate, sportswriters have to make it interesting. Therefore, they're usually the best and most creative journalists in any paper. The Dickey piece was pathetically not up to par. The Alfredo Santos mural story was the obvious choice for the cover. Everything OK at the Weekly?
By the way, I was elected president of the SF Weekly Reader's Union. I'll be sending a list of grievances soon.