Reader feedback 3.10.04

Runoff voting

Ralph Nader may have
cost Gore the 2000 presidential election. Nader’s
candidacy in 2004 underscores the need for Instant Runoff Voting.

            In IRV,
voters rank the candidates when there are more than two. If one candidate is
first choice of most voters, he wins. If not, the least-preferred candidate is
dropped, and his votes are transferred to the second-choice candidate for each
voter. This process repeats until one candidate has a majority.

            Nader may be wrong to run, but he’s right that ideas of
third party candidates may be important for citizens to hear.

            Without
IRV, vote counts don’t reflect people’s real preferences. Voters know that
unless they choose one of two favored candidates, their vote won’t count, and
may help elect a less-preferred candidate. This is anti-democratic.

            Furthermore,
IRV encourages positive campaigning. Voters have more options.

            Without
IRV, voters will continue to be punished for voting their consciences.

            Hank Stone, Route 64, Ionia

Four more years

I am a 21-year-old registered Republican. I
registered to vote at the age of 17, because if I had waited, I would’ve missed
the presidential election. I am very proud to be an American, and that gives me
the right to vote. Since we voted President Bush into office, we have seen
morale in our Oval Office. That is what our nation was founded on, and it would
be so awesome to see God Blessing America again. I am sure there are more
people who feel the same way. I choose Bush for 2004.

            Adam P Hartman, Cook Road, Hamlin

Reviewing the critic

The reasons for eagerly awaiting the weekly
edition of City are probably as
diverse and eclectic as the population of Rochester
itself. For this reader, the reason is the insightful articles of Adam Wilcox,
your reviewer of restaurants and other food-related matters. His writing is
honest, straightforward, and refreshingly non-idiomatic, e.g., his description
of “distressingly perfect food” in his article about Max Restaurant
and its chefs, Tony Gullace and Mark Tupelo (February
18). It is now time, however, for this reader to turn the tables on Mr. Wilcox:
It is time to review the reviewer.

            I use the
word “reviewer’ and not “critic” because Mr. Wilcox’s articles
are so much more than criticism. They go to the heart and soul of the
restaurant: its chefs and its owners. Mr. Wilcox’s unending curiosity also
embraces the whole exciting world and economic range of the Rochester
restaurant scene — regardless of ethnic background.

            And if you
view, as Mr. Wilcox does, the creation of food as an art form, consider the
“insane” daily pressures on a chef: a Picasso or a Rembrandt has a
timeless life span, but a chef must arise each day to create a masterpiece
which is intentionally destroyed — i.e., consumed, and never to be
recaptured, except in our own imperfect memories — and then the process is
repeated thousands of times throughout the chef’s career.

            (I refer
you to two pieces Mr. Wilcox has done: one on Peter and Joanne Gekas and The
Olive Tree, Rochester’s premier Greek restaurant, which just celebrated its
25th year of producing “distressingly perfect” food, and the other on
“The Corn Man,” Robert Gentle of Gentle’s Farm
market, who, with an incredible amount of labor, skill, care, and pride,
personally (not his staff!) hand-picks untold thousands of ears of corn, which,
to this reader, are a privilege and an honor to enjoy.)

            In a larger
sense, though, this “review” is also a tribute to your newspaper,
which has allotted the space that permits Mr. Wilcox’s articles to be so
exceptional. What other regional newspaper would permit Mr. Wilcox to write
more than 1000 words to describe his search for Rochester’s
“perfect” hamburger?

            Lest anyone
think that I am not critical of Mr. Wilcox, however, there is one complaint: I
wish that Mr. Wilcox would taste more wine. However, if his next article is
comparing delta-grown watercress with watercress grown by hydroponics, all is
forgiven.

            William D. Smith, East Boulevard, Rochester

Role model

Recently I substitute taught at a local suburban
high school. At the end of the day, I was walking down a crowded hallway with a
stream of kids. One of them began challenging another kid a few paces ahead of
him in a loud voice and with vulgar language. Having taught high school for 30
years before retiring in the late ’90s, I was not shocked by the language, but
I became concerned about the building tension and the potential for violence. I
could not detect any other adults in the hallway.

            Our stream
of humanity poured out the door, and the young man continued his taunts.
Sensing the possibility of a fight, kids hung out expectantly. There were still
no adults nearby whom I could discern. As a 60-year-old man, I had no intention
of getting into the mix to break up any fight that might occur, but as the only
adult present, I felt it my duty to at least be a witness to the impending
scene.

            What
occurred was extraordinary — and heartening. A very tall boy in a leather
jacket and baggy pants appeared, seemingly from nowhere, walked up to the
bellicose student and, in a gentle but firm voice, told him to stop what he was
doing and leave the area. The boy he addressed tried to resist his advice, but
the gentle giant spoke to him again in that same firm manner and with gentle
force led him away a few steps. The situation was defused.

            As the tall
boy and some friends were walking away, I thanked him for doing the responsible
thing. He was gracious in his acceptance of my thanks.

            My
generation, or any generation, has no monopoly on decency and responsible
behavior. Once again, to that gentle giant: thank you.

            Ed Scutt, MacIntosh Drive, Greece

Also
see: Letters on Nathaniel Rochester.

This article appears in Mar 10-16, 2004.