Reader Feedback 10.9.02

Fields of dreams

After reading Chris Busby’s article, “Rhinos and Red
Wings and Rattlers, Oh My” (September 18), I’ve come to the conclusion
that former County Executive Tom Frey has no clue whatsoever. His moronic
statements about a proposed retrofit of Frontier Field prove that he and his
so-called Sports Authority are completely out of touch with local sports and
the average sport fan in the Rochester area.

                  Frey
and the Sports Authority have a very low opinion of Rochester and its sport
fans. I guess they are just too high-brow for the rest of us. No wonder Bob
King won that election. Too bad Jack Doyle and Mayor Bill Johnson are clueless
also.

                  Frey
asked: “How do we build a separate stadium for a team that has 14 dates,
18 at most, and expect that not to lose money?” This year alone, the
Rhinos had 20 dates played in Rochester. One game had to be played in Webster
because of a scheduling conflict with the Red Wings.

                  The
Rattlers played seven home games at Frontier. The Rochester Ravens, the women’s
soccer team, played six home games. The Rochester Raptors, the women’s football
team, played three home games. By my count, that is 36 potential dates where
the proposed Pae-Tec Park could have been utilizied. That’s not counting Section
V high school games (football, soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, etc),
marching-band competitions, concerts, or many other community events that could
take place there.

                  Frey
is quoted as saying that big rock shows and the like “never showed up at
Frontier.” Does this guy even live in Rochester? BB King’s Blues Fest and
WPXY’s Summer Jam were staged at Frontier. Wouldn’t Pae Tec Park be a great
place for Mayor Johnson’s Rochester MusicFest and the JazzFest? There are fewer
concerts at Frontier because of the few dates are available. Plain and simple!

                  Build
this new stadium, and all the things that I’ve mentioned will happen there. It
is very simple: build it and they will come.

                  The
Sports Authority is trying to blackmail both the Rhinos and the Red Wings into
accepting deals that are bad for both teams.

                  Warren V. Wind, Close Hollow Drive, Hamlin

Chained to Gannett

The comments of my colleague, Democrat and Chronicle spokesman Tom Flynn, in City require a response (“Decade of Indecision,” Metro Ink, October
2).

                  Tom,
in the story about the Newspaper Guild of Rochester’s protest, said that the D&C is “autonomous” in its
negotiations with the Guild. The statement is complete — excuse me as I pause
for a family-friendly word — hokum. Tom knows that Gannett’s corporate
pooh-bahs, ensconced in their sparkling new $300 million Taj Mahal headquarters
in Northern Virginia, handle contractual bargaining with unions.

                  If
the D&C were autonomous, there
would be no need for Gannett’s corporate lawyers to regularly travel to
Rochester and to handle all the decision-making at our bargaining sessions. (I
might concede that the management at the D&C determines the refreshments for bargaining meetings between the Guild and
Gannett. But, even on that point, I’m not sure that the D&C officials are allowed the choice between doughnuts or
bagels.)

                  The
fact is, we’re lucky at the D&C to have a decent publisher like Dave Hunke, who cares both for his workers and
for this community. And we all know that if Gannett allowed caring folks like
Dave to have a say in bargaining, we wouldn’t have this endless silliness that
has caused negotiations to drag on for a decade.

                  Gary Craig, secretary, Newspaper Guild
Local 17 chapter

War and peace

Jack Bradigan Spula’s article “Example for the
Nations” (September 11) misses a number of the essentials. The civilian
casualties cited in Afghanistan are much smaller than the gains modestly
expected by an influx of staying-alive technology. The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof estimates about one million lives
saved over the coming decade as a result of medical-care improvements following
our intervention (www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/opinion/01KRIS.html).

                  The
use of US casualties (about 3000) as some measure of the threat posed by our
enemy misses the intent. Al Qaeda would like to kill a lot more. Analogously,
the limited Israeli civilian deaths are no measure of the intent of Palestinian
terrorists or more generally of their many supporters in the Arab world. Underlying
both are people — more strongly men — feeling like losers and escaping that
through the “empowerment” of hatred, to the species-old tune of “wipe
out the jealousy-invoking group.” That’s why they hate us and furthermore why
they apparently don’t care about violence perpetrated upon their brethren by
Hindu mobs.

                  The
select sweep through casualties in the region doesn’t mention any indigenous
violence. A recent report had Pakistan missing 5 to 7 million women. This past
year saw an estimated 3.4 million additional HIV infections in Africa, most to
women and many of these under imposed circumstances (Scientific American, May 2000). The “brutal” US client
state Indonesia in a classic colonial move ended tribal warfare in Irian Jaya.
Traditional violence is the relevant default when critiquing interventions.

                  The
politically correct bias against investigating and reporting on violence in
indigenous societies is very strong in the social sciences (see the book “How
the Mind Works” and the article on cannibalism in Scientific American, August 2001). This leaves us with academics
like Marc Herold out counting bombing victims while not reporting on any of the
larger traditional (and historically displace-able) violence scenarios.

                  Beyond
all of this, though, is population numbers. Iraq through the ’90s was averaging
7 kids per couple and had dropped to 30 percent food self-sufficiency.
Following the same fertility tract — and minus US/UN sanctions — the
oil-richer Saudis have seen per-capita income drop 260 percent in the last 20
years, almost exactly mirroring the 271 percent population increase
(www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/opinion/20FRIE.html). The humanitarian impact of
the sanctions are potentially minute compared to those associated with doing
the right thing — getting off their oil. Afghanistan is also well beyond food
self-sufficiency and is still averaging 6 kids per couple.

                  We
should stay within the UN-framework on Iraq for now. If we really want to
leverage Saddam et al, we should move aggressively to get off Mid-East oil. The
issue of humanitarian aid for the region is not simple; perhaps at best we can
encourage countries to meet their own basic needs. The countries there — as
well as our own — have serious sustainability homework to do.

                  Ted Christopher, Lilac Drive, Rochester

Jack Bradigan Spula
responds: Readers should check out Kristof’s column and see how it distorts
history and shows deep ignorance of the realities of war.

                  “Ever
since Vietnam,” Kristof writes, “the West has been deeply squeamish about the
use of force… But Afghanistan shows that guns and bombs can save lives as much
as scalpels and IV tubes do.” This fails — and shocks — on two counts.

                  First,
the “West,” which since World War Two has meant mostly the US, has applied
force numerous times post-Vietnam, usually through surrogates and with
exceptional brutality. A few examples: Guatemala’s misnamed “civil war,” with
200,000 dead or “disappeared”; Nicaragua’s Contra War, with thousands of
civilian victims; and yes, Afghanistan 1979-1989, a Cold War battleground with
perhaps a million dead.

                  Second,
compounding his error or omission, Kristof ignores what would have been
possible had the use of force been rejected. In Afghanistan, for example, think
of what a little joint US-Soviet decency could have done. The rich nations
could have funded extraordinary humanitarian efforts — food and medical aid,
education, peaceful economic development — to raise the quality of life
there. Who knows how many millions of lives would have been spared over the
years?

                  Yes,
intent does count. But different levels of incrimination exist, as recognized
in law and moral codes. The US bombed Afghanistan knowing full well the
strategy would kill large numbers of innocent people. That was “depraved
indifference” or worse.

                  The
same judgment applies to pundits who now do riffs on destroying the village in order to save it. Dropping high
explosives on or near civilian areas and then claiming the innocent had to die
so humanitarian efforts could save others — well, that boils down to War is peace.

After the victory

When we, the American people, get our way and we oust Saddam
Hussein, the easiest part of the “war” will have been done. After the
hurrahs have died down, after the slaps on the backs by those who think being
strong is everything, and after some deeply moving graveside memorials attended
by politicians speaking about sacrifice, then we will be hit with an even
bigger problem than “what to do about Saddam.” That is, “What do
we do next?”

                  Do we
leave Iraq in turmoil and chaos? Do we put in a weak puppet leader? Do we set
up a so-called democratic election that will be a joke? Better yet, do we just
annex Iraq and take the oil?

                  It
would be a great comfort to many, and especially those who will have lost loved
ones, if we had a fully expressed and well-articulated Phase 2 to study.
Getting rid of Saddam is not a plan. It is just a reaction. A plan would have
ideas, goals, and strategies for stability in the aftermath of victory.

                  It
would be nice if Saddam were to go for humanitarian reasons, but he isn’t the
menace to the world he is made out to be. His influence is very localized.

                  We
are propelling ourselves toward a tragic end. Without a total plan, the push to
overthrow Saddam looks like just another politically motivated scheme wrapped
in the flag and stained with blood.

                  To
our leaders making the moves toward war I say: Don’t give us the hype, or the
spin, or the BS. Don’t tell us that a SCUD that can fly only 500 miles is a
major threat to the USA. Our homegrown terrorists are much more of a threat
than Saddam Hussein.

                  Don’t
try to make us think that Saddam is Osama. We know the difference between a
strutting peacock dictator of a fourth-rate country and a leader of a fanatical
terrorist organization. Please don’t gives us those scary words in their many
variations that sound like “Trust me.” Give us the real facts, and
tell the American people and the world where we are heading after the victory
parade.

                  Charles White, LeRoy

Irondequoit pick-up

At an Irondequoit Town Board meeting on March 19, a proposal
to change the leaf pickup program was introduced. Councilman Michael Garbin
asked that the responsibility be transferred from the waste haulers to the Town
of Irondequoit at a cost of approximately $15 per year per taxpayer. The plan
is to have residents rake their leaves to the right of way, and a vacuum truck
will periodically be dispatched (two or three times each fall and spring) to
pick up the leaves. The program’s start-up cost is estimated at $475,000.

                  Since
1989, when the town asked the waste haulers to accept the function of leaf
pickup, things have worked out excellently.

                  The
main objection to the present policy is that the bags in which the leaves are
placed are causing an ecological problem because they are not biodegradable. On
investigation, I found that the DEC inspectors at the dump sites have no
problem with the present procedure of leaf disposal. If necessary, the town can
mandate the use of biodegradable bags, and residents can get biodegradable bags
at several outlets at minimum cost.

                  Why would the town want to
take on the problems of the leaf disposal program, when it has been working so
well for so long? If we are dissatisfied with our waste hauler, we can just
engage another company. If we are not satisfied with the town’s performance,
can we contract with a waste hauler? I did a survey and found that 9 out of 10
people indicated that they were satisfied with the present situation.

                  At several town board meetings
regarding the leaf proposal, there was much controversy regarding the change.
The board agreed that a referendum would be included in the November 2002
election, giving residents an opportunity to resolve this controversy.

                  It is important that readers
understand that a change in the leaf program is not a prudent thing to do at
this time. Remember the quote: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

                  David Winterman, Coronado Drive, Irondequoit

Wilmot on Busby

In response to Chris Busby’s “Wilmot Waves a Tiny Flag”
(September 25): It appears that City had better treat Mr. Busby well.
With the kind of cynicism he displayed, he seems to be bucking for a job with
the Democrat and Chronicle’s editorial board.

                  My
proposal before the Monroe County Legislature — and the subject of Mr.
Busby’s editorial — to provide for a state take-over of the Rochester School
District will not pass the legislature. In fact, the Republican majority deemed
my proposal a “memorializing resolution,” meaning that it was not assigned to a
committee, but legislators from both sides have the opportunity to sign the
non-binding resolution, and once signed, the resolution will be sent to Jack Doyle,
Mayor Johnson, and Governor Pataki.

                  I
have been in the County Legislature for nearly seven years. I have never passed
a single piece of legislation, which puts me in good company with the majority
of my Democratic colleagues. Perhaps four or five out of hundreds of Democratic
referrals have passed the full legislature in the past seven years. The
successful referrals dealt with flag poles and tax breaks for seniors. I
applaud my few-and-far-between colleagues who have passed less than 1 percent
of all Democratic referrals offered over seven years.

                  With
no disrespect to my Democratic colleagues (and with a little professional
jealousy, I suppose), I am the kind of legislator who chooses not to put forth
motherhood and apple-pie legislation. I represent a very troubled urban
district; my conscience and my constituents dictate that I take on the tougher
issues. Hence my passion for urban education, housing, and jobs.

                  Mr.
Busby intimates that because the D&C chose poor placement and
coverage of my idea, somehow the idea is diminished. He claims that my press
conference was littered with TV cameras mostly photographing other TV cameras.
He also claims that the TV version of the story received scant coverage that
evening. These are purely editorial comments by Mr. Busby, masquerading as hard
news. Every local TV news department was present at the press conference, and
most if not all featured my legislation in the first 3 to 5 minutes of their
broadcasts, coincidentally where hard news is found in a TV news broadcast.

                  But
what most disturbed me about Mr. Busby’s piece was its naiveté. He seems to
have fallen into the trap that too many journalists are falling into when
covering politics and government: Busby seems to be saying that since a
minority party in a legislative body often has little chance of passing
legislation, perhaps the minority party should refrain from such.

                  Whether
minority-sponsored legislation passes or not is hardly the point. Are Busby and
other journalists of his ilk really suggesting that we Democrats pack up our
legislative tent and go home?

                  My
constituents elected and re-elected me three times to do my best. A state
take-over of the Rochester school district may never work. But my primary focus
on offering urban-based legislation is to always point out the tremendously
debilitating effect poverty has on all facets of the lives of low-income people
— especially children — in the City of Rochester.

                  Snide,
sarcastic editorializing by City Newspaper about the woes of urban
education are hardly in keeping with what I thought was a progressive editorial
agenda on the part of your newspaper. If City has changed its editorial
position, then I must say to your new civic perspective, and to Mr. Busby: no
thanks, Chris.

                  Christopher
J. Wilmot, East Avenue, Rochester (Wilmot is assistant Democratic leader of
the Monroe County legislature.)

This article appears in Oct 9-15, 2002.