THE SYMBOLISM OF ABU GHRAIB
President Bush is responsible for bombing countries and for “bombing”
in his speeches. In his May 24 speech, he added little to what he had said
previously, except the promise to demolish the Abu Ghraib prison and build a
new one in Baghdad, if Iraqis
agree.
           Does he
think tearing it down would abolish Iraqis’ memory of the torture that occurred
there? Or perhaps Americans would forget that their own military and civilians
had inflicted the torture.
           It seems
unlikely that Iraqis will agree to any suggestions coming from Mr. Bush. NPR’s
Peter Kenyon interviewed the Iraqi who ordered the construction of Abu Ghraib,
Abdel-Karim Hani. Some 40 years ago, he was minister of labor and, at one
point, the acting minister of construction.
           Even though
Dr. Hani ended up a prisoner there in 1992, one of 850 in a section designed
for 250, he thinks that demolishing it would be silly. “There’s an Arabic
saying, ‘It’s not the place that matters, but who occupies it,'” he said. “The
worst place, Abu Ghraib, could be a recreation center where everybody would
enjoy going. It’s not the building, it’s the philosophy of the people working
in it.”
           The most
notorious of the Khmer Rouge’s many prisons in Cambodia
is now the TuolSlengGenocideMuseum
in Phnom Penh, and it was once a
school building. Whatever practical use Iraqis find for their own notorious
prison, its memories will serve as a reminder to the people — Kurds, Sunni,
and Shia — and their new government: Unify and coexist peacefully with your
neighbors to keep control of your resources and to keep out would-be Western
conquerors.
           Byrna Weir, Brighton
LOCATING CENTRAL STATION
So MonroeCounty
brought various officials to Rochester
recently to discuss their various performing arts centers. And they informed
the audience that these facilities “bring people downtown.” Were these
visiting officials aware that Rochester
already has the Eastman Theater, the Auditorium Theater, and Geva, and that
these facilities do indeed bring people to downtown Rochester
today?
           Were they
informed that the Rochester has
burgeoning residential development downtown? And were they aware that several
decades ago, so-called Rochester
leaders let the magnificent Rochester Palace Theater be demolished for a
parking lot that is still there today — only a block north of the proposed
Renaissance Square site?
           And were
they made aware that the May department stores, the parent company of
Kaufmann’s, closed Sibley’s in favor of suburban stores?
           Finally and
perhaps most important, were they made aware that the Central Station
bus-terminal plan was developed without considering that an inter-modal
rail-bus transportation facility, as exists in Seattle, might be a better use
of public dollars for revitalization and economic development?
           There is
considerable logic that the bus terminal be constructed at another location,
and that the best use for the Main Street-Clinton
Avenue intersection is retail.
           Why not
study the feasibility of using the historic but dilapidated former B & O
railroad station on West Main Street
for a new bus-rail facility? This would strengthen the nearby Susan B. Anthony
neighborhood, restore Rochester’s
only remaining railroad terminal, provide easy access to I-490, and connect
easily to the nearby Amtrak rail line.
           Scarce
public dollars should be used where they can have the biggest public benefit. West
Main Street would seem to be a better alternative
than the Renaissance Square location.
           Bill Ladd, DeMeter Drive, Greece
PANHANDLER COSTS
A recent letter complained about critics of Rochester’s
new “aggressive panhandling” law (“Bleeding Hearts,” The Mail, June
9; “Will Work to Pay Fine,” May 26). Critics of the legislation say that we
already have laws that deal with intimidating, pushing,
etc.
           The letter
writer also complained because the critics want more of our tax money spent to
help panhandlers. But by arresting panhandlers, we still spend tax dollars on
them. The justice system costs at least as much as rehabilitation, training,
and yes, welfare.
           One way or
another, we’re going to spend our tax dollars on these people. Do we want to do
it in a punitive way for short-term comfort or in a humane way that focuses on
long-term effects?
           If we do
the former, these people will be back and we will spend more tax dollars on
them. What kind of a tax-and-spend policy is that?
           As for the
writer’s charge that the law’s critics were blaming Bush. That’s not exactly
the meaning of what was said. But I agree that it’s not just Bush’s attitude.
It also has been — and is still — the attitude of George Pataki, Bill
Clinton, and a host of other people who represent only those who have, as
opposed to those who have not.
           And look: I
made my points without using stereotypical labels like “liberal” and
“conservative.”
           Stewart Bedasso, Monroe Avenue, Brighton
BAN THE OLYMPICS?
I always enjoy the points of view, intelligent articles, and
exposure to new information in City.
However, I want to respond to Mike Doser’s article, “Olympics Don’t Belong
In Universe” (May 19).
           I agree
with his point about the Olympics being taken over by corporate sponsorship and
TV broadcasting rights. What public event or competition has not been taken
over by these encompassing evils? But it sounds like Doser is celebrating
homogeneity. Should we trade history, tradition, and the idea of athletic competition
for boring complacency, and sequester ourselves in our own nation even more
than we already do?
           Americans
have a bad reputation for only thinking of ourselves. We can only learn from
traveling, being exposed to people with heritage, traditions, food, politics,
and interests that are different from ours. We shouldn’t get rid of the few
opportunities we have to merge with other cultures and countries in something
we all have in common: athletics.
           Sure, the
Olympics are “archaic,” just like the Parthenon, Ionic columns, and
the ideas of Hippocrates, Sophocles, and Plato. I don’t think we should move on
to bigger and better things like strip malls, hot dogs, and reality TV because
these Greek influences are “old.”
           As for
Hitler promoting the Aryan race, he did just fine without the Olympics as
propaganda for his insane beliefs. He would have made his point known
regardless of the Berlin summer
games. With the exception of Hitler, I doubt the masses regard the Olympics as
a celebration of superior race. No one seems to think that the winner of the
World Cup represents a superior nation.
           The idea
behind the Olympics is the same as the idea behind any other sport: a goal for
those talented and dedicated enough to become part of this international
celebration of achievement — and for the rest of us, fun and entertainment.
And it pays attention to the sports that get shoved into the corner: diving,
track, swimming, etc.
           Maybe we
should just ban everything: the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the World Series,
the Tour de France. The only difference I see is that most of the competitions
we Americans enjoy are centered around teams from our own country competing
with each other.
           I suppose
if we’re all going to be Universian, we should not be competing at all. What if
Joe from Texas takes it
personally that Mike from Massachusetts
is a better football player than he is? I guess being Universian just means
that we will all have to sit around watching more TV so that we don’t offend
anyone. In fact, why should we bother trying to educate ourselves? That might
offend a fellow Universian, too.
           Michele Lombardo, Probert Street, Rochester
           Mike Doser responds: The Olympics
perpetuate the myth of nations and races, even though we’re all part of the
human species. They do little for global relations. It’s not bad to celebrate
diversity, but at some point accepting diversity will be as commonplace as a
woman working, and we’ll move on.
           I’m not
suggesting, however, that “we just ban everything.” I propose
creating international Olympic teams. How about having international businesses
actually sponsor the teams? It would be their responsibility to assemble the
best teams they can, regardless of country.
           That’s not
different than having Dominik Hasek represent Detroit
in the NHL. Hasek certainly is not from Detroit;
his association is business only. In my model, he would represent a corporate
entity. Either way, he’d be working for a corporation. And because the team
would be international in makeup, that would promote the Olympic ideals of
peace and friendship.
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 Jun 16-22, 2004.
