Tilling the garden
Mayor Johnson never had a
chance of winning, and most, if not all, of the Democrats in the city knew
that. Republicans all over the area were dancing in the streets when he decided
to run. So why was he chosen? Even if he were the most qualified, several other
local democrats including David Koon and Joe Morelle would have had a chance. So who insisted on
Johnson?
Was it his decision alone or did David Gantt decide? It makes no sense. What makes even less sense is
that local Democratic leaders did not stand up and say “not so fast”. It is one
thing to run someone in order to make some kind of statement. but Bill Johnson
is too good of a person to sacrifice. So who made the call? Why in the world
would Democratic leadership select someone they knew would lose? It is
infuriating to me as a former Democrat (now Independent) to see a party that
claims to be so compassionate make so many decisions in the name of justice
that ultimately cost poor folks dearly.
The separation between the city and the county is going
to get more extreme, and the upcoming budget crisis is going to provide
political fireworks never seen in this area before. I only hope that when they
are asked to make sacrifices, city leaders compromise
by asking all of their constituents to give back. Too often these leaders cry
about inequality but have no problem taking full advantage of the best things
city living has to offer for themselves and their families.
You want to help the poor by maintaining the garden?
Fine, but don’t be afraid to get knee deep in shit if the soil needs tilling.
John Bliss, Rochester
Election
wrap-up
In
the recent election for county executive, a message from wealthy suburbanites
to all the poor clustered in the city: “Drop dead!”
Douglas
Lyttle, Downing Drive, Pittsford
Lies
win
Voters
in MonroeCounty had a choice
recently — and blew it (or didn’t bother to vote at all).
I spent many hours volunteering on
Bill Johnson’s campaign, installing lawn signs, delivering literature door to
door, making phone calls, and driving people to the polls. I recognized the
differences between the candidates — experience, character, vision, integrity
— and realized the long-term ramifications of the outcome of this election.
I’d like to thank City for doing its
best to inform people of the important issues facing this community.
Unfortunately, too many people ignored Mr. Johnson’s message.
The youth of this community (those
who haven’t left yet) learned via this election that vision, experience, and
honesty can be soundly defeated by lies, panic, misrepresentation, or evasion.
It is ironic that those who complain about negative campaign ads help
perpetuate them by voting for candidates who use such ads, or by not voting at
all.
Well, congratulations, Maggie; you
“won.” I pray that you find the answers to the problems facing this county. It
was evident during the campaign that you didn’t yet have them.
But most of all,
congratulations to you, Bill Johnson. You “lost,” but you maintained
your integrity and told the truth, and at the end of the day that’s what
matters. I have never been more proud to be a Democrat.
Christopher
Roesch, Gilbert Drive, Irondequoit
Pseudo-feminist?
Congratulations
to City Newspaper and Jon Popick
(“Sick-Boy”) for participating in the sexism that so pervades
mainstream writing regarding female actresses.
In Popick’s
review of In the Cut (October 29), he emphasizes the graphic sex scenes by
actress Meg Ryan (by graphically describing them himself), rather than
discussing her performance as an actress (giving it one sentence), or even
really discussing the movie itself clearly.
His treatment of the sex scenes in
the film encourages the typical media response to actresses
roles: that is, giving them more attention for the sexual spectacle they
produce rather than the quality of their work. This encourages the
contemporary, sexist view of women that, while we may receive personal and
professional achievements, ultimately we are there to be sexual objects.
All Popick’s
description achieves is that the cinemas will have an influx of teen-age boys
wanting to see the graphic sex scenes that, from this review, appear to be the
entire content of the film. This effect seems antithetical to his review that,
in reading between the sexual lines, essentially gave the film a bad review.
Popick
then adds insult to injury by referring to Ryan’s breasts unprofessionally as
“boobs” while in the same sentence describing them as “42-year
old.” which is obviously her age but as a descriptor of female breasts
connotes the opposite of what our youth-obsessed culture deems valuable. The
point of that paragraph (Ryan’s steamy film attempting to negate her current
sugar-sweet image) is a good one; however. it was made crudely. Popick then becomes a pseudo-feminist by ending his article
with a criticism of the director’s lack of a “robust” female role in
this film.
Sorry, Jon, but that does not get
your previous sexism off the hook. Next time, try reviewing the film
performances, directing, and other relevant matters and leave the graphic
descriptions to Penthouse letters.
And City, your front-page headlines
do not need to reflect your writer’s insensitive language.
LindaBeth Nichols Flack, Chapin Street, Rochester
Which lives?
“The American death
toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed
during the first three years of the Vietnam War.”
Where are all the right-to-life anti-abortionists? Why
are they not screaming about the horrible loss of human life in this senseless
war? Are they so blinded by their ideology that they will accept any number of
atrocities as long as long as their goal is met?
Bush can take millions of innocent lives and steal
billions of dollars, and that’s not a problem. But giving a woman the right to
control her own body is totally unacceptable to them.
Dale Carselli,
Brockport
Missing
Pethic
WGMC
seems to have cancelled Tom Pethic’s Saturday-morning
jazz program. I used to look forward to it!
Can we get Tom back by popular
acclaim? Or shall we listen to another station?
Noel
G. Lawson, Daytona
Avenue,
Webster
This article appears in Nov 19-25, 2003.
