The article “Rethinking 9/11” offered some provocative, well-written food for thought. But what I ultimately found most “mind bending” was that you could run a piece like this without including the voice of a single Muslim or Arab. I raise this issue not from a knee-jerk impulse toward “political correctness,” but because 9/11 has had profoundly negative effects on these communities — effects often very different from those experienced by people from other backgrounds. The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims in this country — whether citizens or visitors — must now live with the hostility, mistrust, and fear of too many Americans who are quick to paint them all with the same brush. Intentionally or not, your article sent the message that their perspectives don’t matter.

Charles Coe
Cambridge

Cold dots
Every Thursday, I look forward to reading the newest Phoenix. Your political coverage is the best in the city, your editorial column is always provocative and intelligent, and I love almost all the other features.

That said, I despise the “Hot Dots” column, which pretends to be a preview of the week’s best television options but instead is almost always little more than seemingly reluctant plugs for PBS shows. In the September 8 issue, for example, the column includes just three football games and a quick note of The Simpsons premiere as the non-PBS options.

“Hot Dots” is so consistently insubstantial, it’s hard to believe it’s not some sort of weird inside joke. There are too many wasted opportunities to explore in this short letter, but this week’s column failed to mention the premier of either ’Til Death (a new sitcom starring Brad Garrett and Joely Fischer) or the much-anticipated launch of the racially segregated Survivor. And then you have the gall to call the column “not your father’s TV listings”!

ADVERTISEMENT

Please, get the esteemed Mr. Garboden to do something else and turn “Hot Dots” over to someone with a true interest in modern-day television. Or at least someone who has cable.

Jamie Willmuth
Boston

Clif Garboden responds: We share some of your pain. The original “Hot Dots” mission (back in 1973) was to publicize under-publicized PBS and local television programming, and, secondarily, to make fun of most commercial TV and alert our readers to funky old movies and relevant network specials. It never did much with commercial-series TV. Since then, the TV landscape has changed. Old movies aren’t funky any more. PBS has a higher profile. Commercial TV is seldom worth commenting on at all — one reality show being as lame as the others. And aside from occasional Channel 5 efforts, there is no more local programming, and the networks seldom do politically or culturally important documentaries. So, to our dismay, the only programming left worth taking seriously is on PBS or on cable. I’ve always considered “Hot Dots,” which apparently has a large readership, to be entertainment and commentary first and information second. A typical service feature it is not. That said, branching out into cable is becoming increasingly tempting.

Needle pricking
Like Worcester magazine, I wonder what will happen to used hypodermic needles bought over the counter at drugstores starting September 18.

Worcester’s Scott Zoback questioned the fate of these legally purchased needles after their use. He is right: that question has not been addressed by the pols or by advocates for over-the-counter needle sales. Supporters of the new law going into effect in less than a month obviously think there’s no debate and no need for one. Why else would they stoop to defacing copies of the magazine?

I wholly support the free-needle-exchange program. I think it works. We have a public-health crisis on our hands. However, in the free-exchange program the emphasis is on “exchange.” What will happen after users use their drugstore-bought needles? Will they bring them to a safe collection place or throw them away anywhere? Hopefully we won’t be seeing more dirty needles on sidewalks or in gutters. Hopefully, users will be more responsible than that, but can we really trust drug abusers to do the right thing? Some will, but some won’t care at all. September 18 is closing in fast. Think about it.

Sal Giarratani
North Quincy

A trip to Paris
I dare the Boston Phoenix to publish this letter in praise of unashamed and unafraid writer Sharon Steel’s rave review of Paris Hilton’s debut album, Paris, and the paper’s up-front declaration that she’s “America’s Next Musical Genius.”

To accusations she’s just part of “the star-maker machinery behind the popular song,” even genius Joni Mitchell admitted as much. Paris had a lot of help with her album, but she put in the hours and she made the ultimate decisions. In answer to Steel’s question about who made the wise decision to release “Stars Are Blind” as the first single for sweet summertime, the answer is that it was Paris, against the wishes of main producer Scott Starch, and she was right.

As to the end results, Paris delivers. Her album hit the streets one week before that of the most widely acknowledged musical genius in rock history: Bob Dylan. His latest album, Modern Times, has received the expected five-star reviews from the usual suspects. The first rock show I ever saw was Bob Dylan and The Band at the Boston Garden some 30 years ago, and he’s been the most inspirational figure in my life, along with The Clash’s Joe Strummer. But there is nothing catchy or cool or genius about Modern Times. It is the sound of wheezing by the graveyard, a stink bomb blowing wind. Meanwhile I’ve listened to Paris’s album more than 20 times; each time she black-buckles me in for a sizzling pop roller-coaster ride on the most fun album of the year. She out-sings Dylan, her musicians outplay his, and the songs slay his. Compared with the old master’s never-ending tour of decline, Paris’s fresh beats are indeed genius.

Michael Burwell
Weymouth