Readers feedback #1

Missing Spula

There is disturbing silence about Rochester
because one of our area’s most able environmental reporters is not on the job.

We cannot
begin to fix the environment if we do not know what is going on. Most of us do
not have the time, or the inclination, to monitor the health of our
environment. We have to depend on the abilities of our best reporters. As most
cities around the country have fewer newspapers — due to media mergings — we citizens are getting less objective news.
This is especially true on the environment, where we need continuous good and
competitive reporting in order to assess the health of our environment so we can
make the best choices for sustainability. Jack BradiganSpula was one of our city’s best eyes on the
environment, and we cannot replace this loss.

Frank J. Regan, Belmont Street, Rochester

Of the many services City
Newspaper provides for the Rochester
area, the greatest by far has been offering the weekly writings of Jack BradiganSpula. That Jack wrote
in City seemed to put Rochester
on the map. Though chaos, idiocy, narrow self-interest, and insanity might
reign in local, state, and national political circles, one could count on a
weekly dose of insight, perceptive analysis, and ideas for constructive action
from Jack. Picking up a copy of City made Wednesday afternoon a highlight of the week.

So it was
with dismay and sadness that I read of Jack’s departure from City. It seems inconceivable to lose
this treasure — a media tragedy. If there is any way to bridge whatever
differences led to this split, you all should find a way to do it. For the sake
of this community, bring back Jack.

Paul Hetland, Alpine
Street, Rochester

I was saddened and dismayed to learn from your all-too-brief
announcement that Jack BradiganSpula
was “no longer on our staff.” Frankly, this is an insufficient explanation
about why City would let such an
outstanding, award-winning, progressive reporter go.

Surely our
community deserves more explanation, as we have relied on Jack’s in-depth,
insightful, and unafraid articles over his last nine years with City. If there were policy differences
behind this, what new policy directions will City be taking after losing or firing the person many of us
consider the best reporter in the local news business.

I am sorry
to have to criticize my favorite newspaper and your editorial decision-making,
but we are left feeling that City has
created an awful gap by the fact that Jack Spula will
no longer be on the staff.

Hugh P. Mitchell, Hillside Avenue, Rochester

From the editor: There has been no
change in our editorial policy or direction.

Nader and the Bush danger

While I share the sentiments of those who support Ralph Nader, I believe they are missing some essential points
that make it unwise to vote for Nader.

It is true
that Nader’s candidacy will likely keep Kerry from
swaying to the right to “broaden his appeal.” However, unfortunately
it really doesn’t matter what a candidate says before election. After all,
candidate George W. Bush avowed to be a compassionate conservative, and to mend
fences, and he made clear that he was opposed to nation building. What really
matters is which candidate after the election will be most supportive of
progressive goals. And we need to avoid wishful thinking that anyone besides
Bush or Kerry has a chance of becoming the next president.

While I
agree that Florida, the Supreme
Court, and Gore himself did more to defeat Gore than
did Nader, we need to do everything we can to defeat
Bush and avoid anything that has any chance of blocking that objective.

And while I
agree that it would be worthwhile and satisfying to announce to the world that
we are not happy with the choices our system gives us, the danger of
sacrificing a vote for Kerry is not worth that goal. Moreover, the message will
be muted, because many who are unhappy with the choices they are given will
have voted for Kerry for the good reason that we need to defeat Bush.

It is
unwise to believe that if all those who are dissatisfied voted for Nader, he would have a chance to win the White House. There
simply aren’t enough progressives in this country to elect a Nader. But there are enough moderates to overcome the
growing number of right-wing radicals in what promises to be a very close
election.

It is a
mistake to underestimate the danger of a continued presence of Bush in the
White House. Nothing in this country has not been threatened
by the Bush Administration except the corporate fat cats. From the
environment to the economy to the poor to international relations and so much
more, the Bush Administration has been an unmitigated disaster. But most
chilling of all is a quote he is fond of using, most recently in his April 13
News Conference: “Freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in
this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an
obligation to help the spread of freedom.” And we might add, God help those
who get in our way.

And
further, if Bush is elected again, God help us all.

Bob Herzog, Rawson Road, Victor

RecentCityletters are solid evidence that a
long-term Republican plan is working. That plan: to gut our educational system,
ensuring their perpetual re-election by a populace that is incapable of
critical thinking and is helpless in the face of fear-and-freed politics
(“Spoiler or Salvation: Defending Ralph Nader,” The
Mail, April 7).

No, Ralph Nader did not steal the election. He only made it possible
for the Republicans to do so. If the election were a baseball game, the Florida
state government and the Supreme Court were the closers. They could guarantee a
Republican win if it was still close in the ninth inning. It was. And the
reason was that a guy named Ralph, who should have been on the sidelines,
reached in and interfered with the ball on what should have been the winning
run for the Democrats.

Say what
you will about the philosophical possibilities of a third party. The bottom
line is that we got Bush, and it could happen again.

Bob Siegel, Penfield

It is disheartening to see that Ralph Nader
and some of his supporters are still in denial about their role in the 2000
presidential election (The Mail, April 14).

Dave Atias, chairman of the local Green Party, claims to have a
“multitude of facts” proving that Nader did
not cost Al Gore the presidency, but the only “fact” he cites relates
to the number of Florida Democrats who voted for Bush — which
“proves” absolutely nothing, since there are crossover votes in every
election. Vanessa Paniccia, in an even bigger non
sequitur, declares that she would never have voted for Gore, thereby
“disproving” the supposed assumption that all of Nader’s
votes would have gone for Gore if Nader had not run.

It’s really
very simple, folks. In the official count, at least, Bush won Florida
over Gore by 537 votes, while Mr. Nader received
97,488 votes in that state. If just 1 percent of Nader’sFlorida votes had gone to Gore,
the Democratic candidate would have carried Florida
by 438 votes, even without a recount, and Florida’s
electoral votes would have won him the election even if the results had not
changed in any other state. (Actually, exit polls at the time indicated that up
to 47 percent of Nader voters would have chosen Gore
if Nader had not been on the ballot.)

Of course,
there is plenty of blame to go around. Gore could have run a stronger campaign,
in which case Nader’s votes might not have mattered.
The incompetence (or worse) of some Florida
elections officials, the unscrupulousness of the Bush campaign, the blatant partisanship of five members of the United
States Supreme Court: In an election that close, everything makes a difference.

None of
that, however, absolves Nader and the Greens from
their share of blame for the “election” of the most dangerously
right-wing president in living memory. If not for them, Gore’s campaign would
have been strong enough, and Bush would not have had an opportunity to
misappropriate the election by stonewalling a full and fair recount.

Ralph Nader had a right to run for president, and people like Mr.
Atias and Ms. Paniccia had
a right to vote for him. But grown-ups accept responsibility for the
consequences of their actions. Nader and his die-hard
supporters demean themselves by pretending they had nothing to do with it; and
they leave the rest of us with little hope that they are willing or able to
learn from their mistake.

John E. Theuman, Oakbrier Court, Penfield

The war and us

In an otherwise compelling article, Mary Anna Towler made a
truly disturbing statement: “Mere citizens, overwhelmed by our own
concerns, don’t want the responsibility of wrestling with complex national
issues” (“Bush’s War,” April 14).

First of
all, aren’t national issues “our own concerns”? Certainly the
ramifications of the war in Iraq
could affect me personally, not to mention any number of national issues with
even more direct relevance (universal health care, off-shoring jobs, standardized
tests in schools, etc).

Second, to
anyone who can’t be bothered with understanding complex issues, I ask: Please
don’t vote. The Iraq
situation got the way it is because the people making decisions framed them in
black-and-white, moralistic terms without fully understanding and accounting
for the complicating factors.

If we
choose to lock our doors and bury our heads, things will only get worse from
here.

Melissa Nicholson, Merchants Road, Rochester

Mary Anna Towler’s
response: Obviously, I agree with you that these are our own concerns. I was just stating what I believe is the
unfortunate case: Most of Americans are caught up in day-to-day demands, and to
keep up with national and international affairs seems overwhelming. (And worse,
far too many Americans, I’m afraid, think they don’t know enough to judge
political leaders competently.)

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 May 5-11, 2004.