The Fest change
City’s February 18
edition features an article entitled “RBTL Gets Dogged.” The headline represents
an unfair and inaccurate characterization of the change in the producer for the
Rochester MusicFest from the Broadway Theater League
to LeadDog Marketing Group.
           I am
hard-pressed to understand how the fact that the city conducted an extensive public
request-for-proposal process that resulted in the selection of a new contractor
for this event equates to anything other than sound business-management
practices. Even though RBTL Chief Operating Officer John Parkhurst
himself acknowledged the need to “get the best bang for the buck” from
contractors, City presented this
information in a negative, inflammatory way.
           July 2004
will mark the 10th anniversary of the Rochester MusicFest.
We are very proud that we have been able to offer outstanding entertainment to Rochester
and the region for the past several years. More than 20 percent of the
attendees of the 2003 festival came from outside of the Rochester
area. Clearly, the RMF is an increasingly important feature on the
entertainment landscape for Rochester
residents and visitors as well. They deserve our very best efforts.
           We are
committed to taking the steps necessary to ensure the continued viability and
growth of this event. For you to suggest that we should do anything else is
surprising and disappointing — not to mention insulting to RBTL, which was
and continues to be an important city partner in producing high-quality
entertainment events.
           Loretta C. Scott, Commission, Department of
Parks, Recreation, and Human Services, City of Rochester
‘No tolerance’erodes rights
I was sorry to hear Howard Stern say on his morning radio
show recently that he had been taken off the airwaves in six major markets, and
even sorrier to read in the New York Post that Rochester was one of these markets. The current “no tolerance”
rule set by Clear Channel Communications following Janet Jackson’s minor Super
Bowl escapade has apparently opened the door for government attacks on our
First Amendment rights. All of this, of course, as we approach an election and
George W. Bush tries to boost his eroding credibility.
           I am from
our wonderful Rochester community,
but am currently working in Manhattan,
so I was able to listen to Stern’s morning broadcast. After taking a number of
calls from concerned listeners, Howard basically stated that nothing could be
done to help the situation and that the government had gotten out of control
with its censorship agenda. But Howard is wrong. Something can be done, and it
starts with important political communities like Rochester.
           It starts
with voters tired of religious-right groups and “family-value”
organizations that undermine our basic human rights. It starts with letters and
phone calls to local representatives and with not voting for any politician willing to hinder our First Amendment
freedoms.
           It starts
with protests (like this one) against those who push their moral righteousness
on hard-working, good Americans.
           It is such
a copout for our president to continue to remind us of his wonderful tax cuts
while he attacks the constitution and proposes an amendment to stop gay
marriage. I would be willing to give up half my paycheck just to receive the
full benefit of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
           This is not
activism. It is trying to once again be the democratic country that we are
capable of being. Please stop the insanity and stand up for what you believe
in.
           Eric R. Schwartz, Greenwich, Connecticut
Don’t blame system for health problems
Thank you for a great article on the
issues most relevant to the presidential primary and election (February 25).
However, I think some of your statements regarding health care require
amending: specifically, concerning our low life expectancy, the cost of health
care, and the nationalization of health care.
           Is it fair
to blame the US
health system for our lower life expectancy as compared to other nations? A
study of health policy shows that the leading causes of death are directly due
to lifestyle choices. The leading causes of death in older people are due to
heart disease, cancer, and stroke — mostly due to lifestyle choices such as
smoking, diet, activity, and alcohol consumption. It is not a coincidence that Japan,
with its traditionally low-fat diet, has the longest average lifespan. I think
the US health
care system is actually doing a fairly good job of keeping us healthy as we
work to make ourselves more unhealthy.
           Secondly,
do Americans pay more than they should for health care? Aggregate data studies
and regression analysis show that changes in per-capita income almost completely
explain changes in medical care spending. In fact, if you graph these two
variables, industrialized nations (regardless of the kind of health-care
system) fall into an almost perfect upward sloping line — and the US
is right were it should be: the highest per-capita income and the highest
medical care spending.
           Lastly, is
a nationalized health-care system something that most Americans even want? In
theory it could help control costs, depending on the types of cost control
implemented, but that would have non-monetary costs of its own. Canada
has nationalized insurance, yet has adopted new medical technology at a much
slower pace than we have. Also, many Canadians travel to the US
for health care to escape the queue period due to the “rationing” of
procedures. Do Americans really want less technology and a longer wait for
procedures?
           However,
changes do need to occur. There are gross inefficiencies in our health-care
system as well as large numbers of uninsured people. The most successful
efforts toward nationalized insurance in the US
have included the idea of mandatory employer-supplied insurance and an expanded
Medicare program to cover all others. Both John Edwards and John Kerry propose
changes consistent with that idea.
           Joel Thompson, University of Rochester
           Jack BradiganSpula responds: The US
health-care system admirably serves those who have full access to it and money
to spend. But with 40-plus million uninsured at any moment, the system is
clearly not accessible enough.
           The World
Bank ranks Norway
and Switzerland
right up with us in wealth per capita. We outstrip those nations in per capita
health spending, though. An OECD summary says that in 2001 we spent almost
$4,900 per capita. The Swiss spent around $3,300; the Norwegians, around $2,500.
Yet look at comparative life expectancy (from the Census Bureau): US, 77.1; Norway,
78.7; Switzerland,
79.6.
           An
Australian government study, looking at 1990s, found Switzerland
and Norway had higher
percentages of adult smokers than we did. Alcohol consumption is not unknown in
Europe, either.
           Nobody’s
more concerned about queues than Canadians themselves. They’re loudly calling
for more government funds to cure the problem. (Fans of privatization sometimes
exaggerate the problem, too.) Canada
spent around $2,800 per capita on health in 2001. That could be increased
significantly without challenging US spending levels.
           I think the
crossborder issue is overblown. A data-based study in
Health Affairs (2002) found the
numbers of Canadians coming here for care “are so small as to be barely
detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home.” Indeed, much
of the crossborder activity occurs in remote rural
areas, where Americans travel to Canada
for health care, as well.
           Last: The
OECD summary notes that USpublic spending on health in 2001 was
$2,168 per capita — about the same as the OECD average for total health spending ($2,117). The take-home message? We could realize huge savings, and
better outcomes, by “going public.” That will take not regression
analysis, but progressive politics.
Nothing changes
I congratulate Brian Lorenzo for having the wisdom to
comprehend what many of my generation still haven’t grasped (The Mail, February
18): the Republicans and Democrats may package themselves ideologically very
differently for their perceived core voters, but when you unwrap those packages
and lay them side by side at the end of a political term, it’s very difficult
to tell one from the other.
           There are
two basic reasons for this. First, both parties’ main priority is to serve that
top 5 percent of Americans that control 90 percent of the wealth. This is the
true core constituency for both major parties. This is why every living US
president from both parties posed smilingly for a group portrait when Nafta passed.
           This is
why, as Brian stated, CEO salaries went from 50 times the average worker’s pay
to 400 times while the middle-class standard of living continued to lose ground
under Clinton’s watch.
           This is why
the middle-class retirements were shifted from pension-based retirement funds
to 401K retirement plans. This is why US
businesses are allowed to move overseas, laying off their US
workers without ensuring that they receive financial support to re-educate,
re-train and re-establish themselves in the new economy. This is why China,
one of the most repressive governments on the planet, gets “most favored
nation” trading status.
           This is why
universal health care never got beyond the rhetoric stage after Clinton
took office. This is why the current new Medicaid prescription-drug plan does
more to protect American pharmaceutical companies’ profits than it does poor
and elderly Americans in need of the drugs they produce.
           The second
reason is that to gain or remain in power, both major political parties require
the majority vote of the 40 percent of the US
citizenry. They both know that to do this, they must hold the middle ground and
offend as little of middle America
as possible. Democratic Party presidential candidates John Edwards and John
Kerry did that with their non-stand on gay marriage: stating they are against
gay marriage but also against a Constitutional Amendment. As Al Sharpton said, this is akin to the stance our political leaders
took on slavery for our first 100 years.
           Most
politicians have been saying for years that they are personally against
abortion but won’t interfere with a woman’s right to chose, neither completely
satisfying nor displeasing those on both sides of the issue. If America
isn’t sure where it stands on a social issue, the Democrats and Republicans
will hug the middle ground.
           So Brain,
you’re absolutely correct: Whether it’s a Democrat or Republican in the White
House, little changes. The rich get richer, the rest get poorer, and those with
liberal or conservative agendas too far from center get lip service and
rhetoric until their ideology is solidly embraced or rejected by the majority
of mainstream voters. Perhaps yours will be the generation that makes an
alternative third-party candidate a realistic alternative to the status quo.
           Nathan A. Brightman,
Albemarle
Street, Rochester
Casting the first stone
My daughter, who visits Planned Parenthood for her annual
OB-GYN check-ups, called me recently, sobbing, from the street outside the
downtown Rochester office. She’d
been upset and frightened by a group of “pro-life” protesters.
           The
ringleader, a man with a bullhorn, had singled her out as she left the building
to fetch something from her car. He started bellowing accusations (and worse)
directly at her while others knelt in “prayer” around him. Since she
was there to look after her reproductive health, not only was this
“protest” inaccurate, it was cruel in the extreme.
           While
claiming to speak for God, this heartless man felt free to judge my daughter,
apparently ignoring the strong warning given in the Scriptures: “Judge
not, lest ye be judged.” Unlike Jesus Christ, who compassionately
confronted the “woman at the well” in private, and who condemned a
mob getting ready to stone Mary Magdalene by saying, “He who is without
sin, let him cast the first stone,” this “Christian” mercilessly
and self-righteously harassed my daughter until she was completely unnerved.
           My daughter
begged a nearby police officer to stop the harassment, but was told the man was
within his rights to “protest” this way. As my
daughter later asked me: “What about my rights? What about the
rights of the people who live on this street? What about the rights of the
women who work there for peanuts, just trying to help girls avoid abortions by
offering education and alternatives? What about the rights of the babies whose
mothers get pre-natal care there?”
           Afraid to
even go back to her car, my daughter ducked into a nearby deli to try to
compose herself. The proprietor, a man of Middle
Eastern descent, offered her a free snack and tried to distract her from her
tears by complimenting her on her necklace. Two African-American men in the
store warmly told her to “take care” when she left. As she walked
back to her car, a woman carrying laundry fell in step with her. This kind
black lady understood the situation immediately — and sympathetically asked
my daughter if mean people “like that” didn’t make you want to cross
that street and “kick ’em.”
           “Did
he really think,” my daughter asked me, still in tears hours later,”
that he’s going to convince me of anything by humiliating me in public?”
           My daughter
did have an encounter with God that day, but it wasn’t the one the man with the
bullhorn intended. Instead, she felt the presence of a loving God in the
kindness of strangers. She’ll never forget their warm caring. Nor will she ever
forget that shameful demonstration of sanctimonious intolerance, cruelty, and
ignorance —professed, ironically, all in the name of a God my daughter loves
and worships.
           Marline Williams, Webster
The plague
Regarding mad-politician disease, the current thinking among
investigative authorities is that the outbreak on Capitol Hill can be traced to
tainted campaign contributions. The illness, a degenerative and debilitating
ailment known as conscientious spongiform encephalopathy, is believed to result
from politicians accepting large corporate and private donations, thereby
forgoing ethical considerations in their decision making.
           Currently,
the investigators have focused on oil, defense, pharmaceutical, agricultural,
and energy companies as potential carriers. A substantial majority of those
responding to a public-opinion poll expressed great concern that the president’s
campaign war chest of over $150 million will further erode protection of the
environment, increase the gap between rich and poor, continue the outsourcing
of American jobs, saddle future generations with unmanageable deficits, and
erode government-mandated services for the least fortunate in our society.
           Although
the investigation is still in process, and suggestions for a cure await
completion, a number of organizations and citizens are calling for an end to
campaign contributions by corporate America
and a return to democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people.
           Peter R. Mitchell, Edgerton Street, Rochester
Writing to City
We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester14607.
           Our
guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and we ask that you include
your street name and city/town/village. We don’t publish letters that have been
sent to other media. While we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350 words have a greater chance of being published. We
do edit letters for clarity and brevity. And in general we don’t publish
letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more often than once
every three months.
This article appears in Mar 17-23, 2004.
