We get letters. . . .
The media is brushing aside Mike Tyson's domestic violence so that they can protect his professional violence. I wouldn't have believed what you wrote if I hadn't heard the following comment from a teacher in a UCLA Extension class: "If Mike Tyson had really beat his wife, her head would look like mush. All it takes is one hit to wipe her out and she claims he did it a lot. Hah!"
I was so flabbergasted that I could say nothing. If I had my wits about me, I would have said that most men who use violence against women do it in a way that there are no visible scars or marks. Also, it doesn't matter if he actually hit her or not. The mere fact that he threatened to hit her and that he tried to intimidate her with his size and strength is enough to support her claim of having been violated.
The second issue that you didn't address is why so much press attention has been given to a fledgling marriage between two very young people. What great accomplishment or knowledge do they have to share with us? They are two lucky kids who've made it big in tough industries and who fell in love and got married. So what?
I do not condone wife beating and never have done it. But I cannot understand why you are trying to put a Hollywood spin on a real-life soap opera by making an issue of allegations that Tyson beat Givens. Tyson's friends are right to rescue him from the clutches of obvious gold-digging monsters like Givens and her mother, Ruth Roper. Why don't you complain about the way they have battered him?
A. S. DOC YOUNG
I can't decide if you're an out-and-out open gay (which would explain your acceptance of the more open CBS version of Liberace's life) or a clothes-closet gay that resents Andrew Robinson's sensitive portrayal of a talented-but-sad human being in the ABC version. The day a second-rate newspaper hack like yourself shows as much talent as Mr. Robinson (or many other artists you have maligned), the Los Angeles Times would elevate you to a position far above a column and a half in the Calendar section.
Poking fun at Pat Robertson concerning his partisan views is one thing. Poking fun at a faith that literally millions would die to defend not only is in extremely bad taste, but also shows you up to be entirely ignorant of what a spiritual life is all about.
It is possible for a man to hear from God. If you have watched "The 700 Club" in the past, you have seen people testify to having some ailment, hearing the word of knowledge from someone praying on the program, and realizing that the word was for them. Accepting it, they were healed.
Robertson does not go into a trance when he prays. One does not do this when communicating with God. Also, Robertson was making a comment about Dukakis as a short man. He did not say to vote for Bush for this reason. What is wrong with you? Do you hate people who love God?
I concentrated and got the word that God will forgive you for your irreverent attitude toward Pat Robertson. Also, God told me that you will get your million, but only if you drop your cockamamie job and become a TV evangelist.
I decided that if Mr. Robertson could get direct access to God, then so could I, so I turned to his show and mastered his technique. Right from the start I told God I wasn't a TV evangelist and that I didn't want the daily "healing" list, but rather I wanted some answers to some of the major questions facing our nation at this time. His answers are as follows:
--"Yes, there will be world peace sometime in the distant future."
--"Yes, human beings will learn to live with each other in harmony."
--"And, yes, the Dodgers will win the World Series."
In closing, he did say that he had installed a new blocking device that would block all the calls from TV evangelists, primarily because he didn't approve of the way that they kept distorting his messages to fit their political agenda.
H. K. McKWEN
I must take exception to your article which criticized the Olympics coverage of Florence Griffith Joyner and Keba Phipps from a glamour perspective. You indeed sounded like a true radical feminist with your philosophy that the mere acknowledgement that a girl is sexually attractive is cause for comment. Of course, male athletes weren't treated in the same manner. Can you imagine the implications of a camera slowly panning the body of a male athlete?
Do you really believe that referring to a woman as a "girl" in an affectionate manner is the hallmark of a sexist dog? What are you, some kind of mama's boy wimp?
Wasn't it actually Dick Enberg making all the sexist comments about the women gymnasts? I seem to recall Bart Conner's silences after Enberg made remarks such as, "She's like a fine wine" and "My, isn't she stunning?" I, for one, found it extremely offensive.
For God's sake, spare us your trips into "social justice" with your really dumb and pandering comments on "girl," "woman," "man" and "boy" talk. Readers don't want your unqualified social preaching.