Reader feedback 3.2404

When bad
government makes good politics

by Stephanie Aldersley

Is
it possible for bad government policyto
be good politics? We need only look to the recent actions of the Republican
majority in the CountyLegislature to find the answer to
this question.

            Since last November, when the Republican majority cut
funding for the public-health nurses in the Rochester school district, they have devoted
much of their time trying to evade responsibility for their irresponsible
actions.

            First, they tried to convince the
public that Democrats were somehow responsible for the cuts, since we would not
respond to their demand to borrow an additional $21 million and sink the county
further into debt. And now they are hiding behind a ruling made last Thursday
by Judge Kenneth Fisher. Although Fisher’s decision does not prohibit the
county from providing the nurse service — a service which it has provided
since 1958 — CountyRepublicans are already taking the position
that since they are not compelled to
fund the nurses, they should not.

            Just as serious is the potentially
devastating impact the Republican cuts will have on the county’s ability to
respond to an emergency or disaster. Republicans in the legislature slashed
public-health nurses with such haste that they overlooked how the county’s
emergency-preparedness plans would be impacted. Public-health nurses are among
the county’s first responders in the event of an emergency or disaster, as
detailed in the county’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.

            So vital is the role of these nurses
that the county has spent $1.5 million in bioterrorism
response training. These taxpayer funds were used to train personnel who will
now no longer be working for the county, as a result of the Republican cut.

            This astonishing oversight leaves a
huge gap in the county’s emergency preparedness plans. And $1.5 million in
taxpayer funds, meant to protect the public from bioterrorism,
were wasted.

            Would the legislature’s Republicans
really rather spend taxpayer money to defend the county against a RochesterCitySchool District lawsuit over funding
these nurses? Clearly, money spent fighting the interests of schoolchildren and
emergency preparedness is unseemly, desperate, and wasteful.

            And the ruling by a judge
notwithstanding, the county has taken a morally questionable position by
reneging midway through the school year on a 46-year-old obligation it has
fulfilled. We are fortunate that School Superintendent Manuel Rivera was able
to find a number of generous contributors to come up with a portion of the
$619,000 necessary to keep the city school nurses and emergency responders in
place through the end of June. Dr. Rivera is the hero of the hour. But make no
mistake; funding is running out, and this crisis has not ended.

            Maggie Brooks was not in office when
the Republicans in the legislature foolishly cut the nurses out of the county
budget. She cannot be blamed for their reckless behavior. However, it is
clearly time for her to use what influence she has, to bring rationality back
to the policy making of her Republican colleagues. It is not in the best
interest of the community to have not only schoolchildren without nurses, but
also the health department without the necessary resources to respond to an
emergency.

            We Democrats believe that the
citizens of MonroeCounty will reject the notion
that bad government is good politics, and will repudiate these Republican cuts.

            This is a community crisis. The
Republican administration cannot depend solely on the generosity of concerned
private donors to fund vital county employees. Nor can the Republicans count on
legal rulings to let them off the hook. This countywide necessity demands a
countywide solution. The Republicans in power can start to repair their budget
mistakes by leading the effort.

            Aldersley is Democratic minority leader of the MonroeCounty Legislature.

First
things first

I heard
there was a contest to name the new “fast ferry.” I think we should call it
“School Nurse.” That way everyone can understand just the kind of political
will and community spirit we really have here.

            They will see that we are willing to
bend over backwards, make complicated international economic agreements, and
raise billions of dollars to put some “pizzazz” and excitement into
our humdrum little urban existence. Yet at the same time, they can see that we
cut services to the most vulnerable members of our community, work out our
political vendettas, and balance budgets by cutting out school nurses. That’s
just the kind of place we are. Wouldn’t you want to go visit?

            For me that “fast
ferry” will always be known as the “School Nurse.” Shame on us!

            Maria
Scipione, Sanford Street, Rochester (Scipione is the parent of
a child in the city school district.)

From the
text: the Bible and homosexuality

“Whatever
the word of God says, we stand on it,” said Rev. Norvel
Goff Sr. recently, while representing the Faith Community Alliance’s defense of
heterosexual marriage. When it comes to God’s words about homosexuality, I can
only assume he was speaking of the six “tried and true” Bible verses
condemning homosexuality.

            One of those verses is Genesis 19:5,
wherein the purpose of the story is to show that those minorities that are
misunderstood, strange, or feared in a particular community are in danger of
becoming victims of violence by the majority, particularly when that majority
happens to be ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid.

            I suggest that one read the totality
of Genesis chapter 38 for a much clearer picture not only of those
family-destroying same-sex couples we should all fear, but of other
constructive attitudes about women, sex, the control
of men over women, the double standard for men and women, and other fun
sexuality issues. And don’t miss the part where Lot offers his daughters to be abused
by the crowd in order to save his visitors.

            The next two verses, Leviticus 18:22
and 20:13, one can look at together. I’m no expert in Biblical Hebrew
or in Ancient Near East history, but it appears to me as if both of these verses
refer not to homosexuals, but to heterosexuals who took part in fertility
rituals of the heathen god Baal. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality
is implied, as far as I can tell.

            And, from what I know, the word
“abomination” was used in Leviticus (as well as in other sections of
the Bible) for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean,
particularly idol worship. But don’t take my word for it, check it out
yourself, and make up your own mind.

            While you’re there, be sure to take
a look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where some unclean animals are forbidden as food,
like rabbits, pigs, and shellfish such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, and
clams. Pigs and shellfish? No more trips to Red
Lobster or the Dinosaur BBQ, it seems. God said so!

            Next up, Romans 1:26-27, which is
part of Paul’s denunciation of idolatrous religious worship. If there is one
theme to keep in mind as one reads these texts, that theme would be context. Once one reads the section in
Romans from 1:18 to 2:4, one can see that Paul isn’t condemning homosexuals,
he’s looking at a first-century group of people engaging in some funky
religious practices.

            And even if one ignores the context
and reads the verse as-is, Paul’s term “against nature” is the same
term used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting “against
nature,” in God’s case, by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the
family of God.

            It seems as though “against
nature” was used to speak of something that wasn’t done in the usual way,
but since God also “acted against nature,” one can’t say that
something “against nature” was evil. To do so would imply God is evil
also, wouldn’t it?

            We find the word
“effeminate” in 1 Corinthians 6:9. This word is used as
“soft” in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, as
well as “illness” in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. I don’t think it’s used
anywhere else in the New Testament, and carries no hint of reference to sexual
orientation in those passages unless I very erroneously read so into it. “Effeminate”
in 1 Corinthians 6:9 more than likely refers those who are “soft,”
“pliable,” “unreliable,” or “without courage or
stability.” Reading it in context, that is.

            Last but not least, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, where we find a word often translated as
“homosexual” or “sexual pervert.” The Greek word is “arsenokoites,” which seems to be formed from two words
meaning “male” and “bed.” I can’t find this Greek word
anywhere else in the Bible, and I challenge one to find the word elsewhere in
the contemporary Greek of Paul’s time.

            Even after Paul’s time, when early-Greek speaking Christian preachers
condemned homosexuality, they didn’t use this word. John Chrysostom
preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used that particular word
for homosexuals, and even when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he didn’t mention homosexuals.

            “Whatever the word of God says,
we stand on it.” Houses and sand. I suggest we
spend our time condemning poverty, war, famine, injustice, racism, sexism,
gender-ism, hatred, and outright disrespect for our fellow human beings. God
had more to say about those than God did about homosexuality.

            And before I forget, why exactly is
it we never use Leviticus 19:18 to condemn homosexuals? That
carpenter guy we read about in the New Testament quoted from Leviticus 19:18
more than a few times. I say we use that verse instead of constantly using the “tried and true” six above.

            David Puskas, Armstrong Road, Greece. (Puskas is on the staff of the ColgateRochesterDivinitySchool. He’s writing for himself, not the
divinity-school staff at large.)

‘No’ to
marriage

I
personally object to same-sex unions, but at least please do not refer to them
as marriages. A marriage is an old, time-honored, and Bible-recognized
tradition that was established to protect all the people involved in this
event, including any possible future children.

            We all know there is no chance that
a child can be born to a same-sex couple. When a same-sex couple wants to adopt
a child or arrange for a surrogate donor, special attention should be made as
to the future welfare of that child. Also, what happens to the child if this
same-sex couple decides to divorce or separate?

            The complications are endless, to
say nothing about the absolute impossibility of tracing family lines in the
future. Maybe after a couple of generations there would be a possibility of
unknowingly marrying a first cousin.

            The old traditional marriage between
a man and a woman should be left alone. It has worked fairly well over the
years. But if there is going to be unions between same-sex couples, the ground
rules have to change, and the unions will have to be known by something other
than a marriage to point out the difference.

            Jay
C. Widener, Old Chili
Scottsville Road, Churchville

Strong marriages,strong
society

In recent
weeks the media have reported comments by many people concerned that, if
same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, it would threaten heterosexual
marriage, children, and society in general. On the contrary, they would be
strengthened.

            I write from a position of
treasuring my marriage of almost 58 years and our children. I have never felt
that my marriage was threatened by the committed relationships of same-sex
couples. I wish they could have the same benefits of legal marriage that I do.

            I know that a single parent can do
an excellent job of rearing children, but I also know that it is a demanding
(through rewarding) job. A parent benefits greatly from the other parent’s
support and help. Children benefit from the care of two parents, whatever the
sexual orientation of the parents.

            Society also benefits from the
financial, practical, and emotional strength of citizens who commit to love and
care for each other — in other words, to marry. We can increase that strength
by allowing all our citizens to
marry.

            Elizabeth
Stewart, East Avenue, Rochester

Nader’s
ego

I am a
Democrat who is appalled by Ralph Nader running for
president again. Who does this man think he is? We should be doing everything we
can to get George Bush out of office, and Nader
decides to go on an ego trip at the expense of the country.

            We have to get Bush out of office so
that my Democrats in the House and Senate will no longer vote for such things
as invading Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the No Child
Left Behind Act. They didn’t want to vote for these
things, but they had no choice.

            Ralph Nader
refuses to see this. What is his problem? Al Gore ran a tremendous campaign
only to have the presidency taken from under him by the well-funded Nader campaign. Nader even took
away votes from the Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform Party candidates. It
was as if the media wanted Nader to win.

            We don’t need any more choices. I’m
happy with the two-party system outlined in the Constitution. Ralph Nader, leave us alone.

            Stewart
Bedasso, Monroe Avenue, Brighton

Fit to
print?

On March 3,
National Public Radio reported that an American soldier was killed and another
seriously injured when someone threw a hand grenade at their Humvee in northern Baghdad. I know Wednesday was a heavy
front-page day for the Democrat and
Chronicle with Democratic primary results, 143 killed at shrines in Iraq, and discovery of a missing girl’s
body in Geneva. But even on their page 3, not a word about dead Americans
in Iraq. 
Why not?

            Is it Gannett’s policy not to
mention war casualties as we move closer to the Presidential election?

            Gil
French, Wisconsin Street, Rochester

Bush using
tragedy for his
own gain

Once again
our president has demonstrated how obtuse and insensitive he can be. His
re-election campaign ads, which began airing March 3, include images of the
wreckage at Ground Zero, and firefighters working on the recovery effort.
Family members of 9/11 victims are furious, and rightfully so.

            The New York Daily News covered the issue March 4. “It’s a slap in
the face of the murders of 3,000 people,” said Monica Gabrielle, whose
husband died in the twin tower attacks. “It is unconscionable.”
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled. “It’s as sick as
people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground
Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics,” Fee said.

            Bush is exploiting our national
tragedy for his own gain, despite his declaration: “I have no ambition
whatsoever to use this as a political issue.” Well, gosh, what does he
think he’s doing now?

            These ads are inappropriate and way over the line. Even more ironic, as
reported in the Daily News, many
family members are especially upset because President Bush still refuses to
meet with the whole 9/11 commission, which was set up to determine what went
wrong in the lead-up to the attacks. So, why the delay?

            Let’s hope people keep these things
in mind on election day.

            Rachel
Miller, 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 24-30, 2004.