Rumblin’, stumblin’, and grumblin’
Was Patrick Dobson on curmudgeon pills when he went with his daughter and uncle to Science City (“Science sham,” Feb. 3-9)? Having spent this past New Year’s Eve reveling in the fun and, excuse me, educational value of Science City, I was rather taken aback at Mr. Dobson’s critical view (and cranky tone) throughout his article.
“Lack of educational focus”? I’m a 52-year-old former schoolteacher with a love of learning, and I can’t wait to go back. While I was there, I had a mind-boggling array of adventures. My favorites were producing a newspaper via computer; taking on the role of weather forecaster on television, actually appearing on a television screen; and even experiencing life in a spaceship, including learning how to manipulate objects outside the craft. I didn’t see any of these activities mentioned. I found Science City upbeat, educational, and fun. His article was a bummer.
If anything is going to kill Science City, it’s the badmouthing of the museum, not the museum itself.
— Trudy Keyes
Kansas City, Mo.
For the home office …
Although this is my first communication to your publication, I have been a reader for many years and, though not always in agreement, have always enjoyed Pitch‘s willingness to examine disparate views and facets of the KC metropolitan community. However, I wish to question the wisdom of two moves made by the publication since its sale to an outside group.
First, I was very disappointed that Pitch removed its book review section. By seeking out and presenting books that might not receive attention from other media outlets, you did a commendable service to both authors and readers by exposing them to each other. Further, it was always interesting to read of the local writing community, whose exposure is at best limited in the other major metropolitan publication. It is strange to me that an entity that depends upon the reading of the written word would in turn eliminate the column devoted to promotion of the same but would keep columns on music, theater, movies, music, and even sports, none of which engage the individual in so private a way as does reading.
Second, I must question the inclusion of “Savage Love” as a replacement for the earlier advice column for sexual matters. I can find no credentials on record for Mr. Savage, other than that he once wrote for a bar magazine. He has consistently hyped himself over the years in order to attain his status. He likes to tell stories about himself, which may or may not be related to the question he is answering, and he seems very taken with himself as both a satirist and humorist. Unfortunately, he is neither. In short, he’s a boob.
If Mr. Savage is included in Pitch because he is gay and “edgy,” then such a decision is insulting to competent professionals, gay and nongay, in the field of sexual counseling. Other writers and media personalities who work in this area have academic or professional standing, but Mr. Savage is allowed to spew forth advice without anyone asking if he knows what he is talking about. Pitch has a responsibility to its readership, who may rely upon that advice, to ensure that the source is responsible. I do not have much faith that Pitch has fulfilled that responsibility in this case.
— Michael Foubert
In the article “Environmental group releases congressional scorecard” (Feb. 17-23), Missouri Sen. Kit Bond was mistakenly listed as a Democrat. There is no doubt he is a Republican.