Howard, your vision of the issue of race is completely one dimensional.
Who exactly are the "people of color" you have pitted against whites? The behavioral - not racist - division in Rochester is primarily between a significant subset of young African Americans and everyone else. That division is defined by the disruptive behaviors of the former.
I was recently at a meeting for a Rochester branch library facing a serious teen problem (almost all of whom were African American). That problem included assaults on the premises. In walked a tardy city official who commented 'sorry I was at meeting discussing the problem of assaults on refugees'. No one had to ask who was perpetrating those assaults. Of course none of this was news - unlike your march in Greece - given the enormous barriers to honesty on the subject of race.
I think that a recent statement made by Mr. Aaron Wicks regarding this article is critically important, and in fact classic, i.e.,
"It would be refreshing to have some discussion about precisely what kind of serious damage to our community would be done by talking about race during a campaign. We already know the damage from not talking about: clear disparities between whites and people of color in virtually ever measure of social well-being. THAT is serious damage. If one is concerned that feelings might get hurt or old wounds might be reopened -- or, heaven for fend, some yelling and naughty words get uttered -- perhaps that might be the type of damage we can endure to prevent the damage we have been perpetrating on ourselves for generations. Alas, the dark editorial supplies no indications of the serious damage that such a campaign would cause. It simply takes it as a given."
Primaries are healthy, as long as they're restricted to a single match up between candidates (and with a run off if necessary). They are however disasterous when utilized in the manner we see every four years with our presidemtial primaries. As a result of far too much media hype and far too little intelligent weighing of the candidates by the voters in subsequent primaries, we now have a system where a few thousand individuals in Iowa and New Hampshire are for-all- intents-and-purposes, selecting the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates for the remaining 313,900,000 of us.
Alex White probably is the best candidate for the job, unfortunately he doesn't seem to have much of a base. Additionally, Richards (the seasoned lawyer/businessman) will make it difficult for him to make any charges stick. Like it or not, this probably will come down to race... If Warren gets the vote out, she wins - possibly by landslide. And I truly hope she does as Richards' blustering, arrogant style of governing (much like "Big Brother" Bloomberg's or King Andy's) quite literally infuriates me.
I am always commenting on the need for bold leadership, however bold leadership must be focused on the important issues. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in Rochester.
The last bold move by a Rochester mayor was rolling the dice on the fast ferry. About the only other bold announcements , which are actually somewhat common, are construction projects. ...the still born Renaissance Square and PaeTec Tower, which now is not going to cast much of a shadow.
But how do things like ferries and office towers help with the true issues plaguing the city? They don't. When all of our time, energy and money are poured into big dream projects, they isn't any time, energy , money or interest in focusing on poverty and crime.
All local leaders are guilty of ignoring the important issues, but they can't seem to ignore a building project. The short term creation of jobs gets hyped...then what?
Alex White is the only candidate for mayor who ever talks about the important issues. Alex White is the only candidate not being swayed off course by the distractions the other candidates fall prey to--money and powerful people.
Rochester need a truly good progressive mayor who knows what the real issues are. Rochester needs Alex White.
The latest numbers thrown around are about 11,000 gun RELATED deaths per year in the US. These include death by COPS and JUSTIFIABLE homicides...where the good guy wins so criminals don't get to live doing more crime and causing more deaths. It is unfortunate but necessary.
Why don't you look at the actual statistics?
Here are the victims:
And the perpatrators? The same! There, I said it. Now refute it if you are able!
A must read no matter what your position. History is very telling of what disarming citizens will do. Number one killer of all time...democide...death by your own or another government (war, genocide, etc).
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -James Madison
Cosmetics do nothing to the effectiveness of a firearm. That's the problem...misinformation with no unbiased sources and much of a general populace who is then misinformed. The D&C, owned by Gannett, has spread flat-out lies and biased stats. A sling swivel is not to attach a grenade launcher to, which are already banned, but placed in Feinstein's bill just for an emotional response. Hollywood doesn't help making it look like guns have unlimited bullets and silencers make guns silent.
Just like religions, you can't lump gun owners all together. That is one trick used to demonize all gun owners, 99.999% of which have not committed a crime nor will. A single mother protecting her kids does not have the same objectives as a sportsman or a competition/recreational shooter. A "prepper" also has different goals. The idea big gov't will always be there in an emergency if a fallacy even with FEMA, which has now become highly militarized versus humanitarian. Natural distasters of late have people shouting for the gov't to do something...rather than having been prepared! Of course there are all sorts of products out there...many for a zombie apocalypse...it is all marketing and sells because that is what is popular.
Single shot idea's main problem is this: when you disarm law-abiding citizens will the criminals simple turn in their multishot firearms? Will the military/police as well? How effective is one shot in a self-defense scenario, especially more than one attacker obviously. The police hit rate is less than 20%, would have to look it up. For sportsman, myself included, I know I have needed more than one shot. Wounded game disappearing into the brush is not ideal for an ethical take. I am sure you heard of the woman attacked in her attic. 5/6 shots hit the guy in the face and body yet he survived. The lowest recoil firearms for those of low stature to use and popular for concealed carry are small caliber where one more shot is needed and can be life or death. Also, most firearms are used for sporting/recreation...it is simply too much of a burden to reload after each shot. It would even change olympic sports where shooters get on target and need to stay on target. In the case of Virginia Tech the shooter used 17 five and ten round magazines. When the victims are disarmed or there are magazine limits, criminals take reign. In the milliseconds needed to change out a magazine they would have you believe you could rush the gunman. This has been proven false, it would be suicide. The ideas that our Founding Fathers would only use a one shot musket versus a modern musket (black rifle) is absurd. They did know the value and inevitability of technology and mult-shot firearms did exist even then.
Thoughtful, necessary and timely commentary. Thank you Mary Anna.
I have to agree with gun owners on one point. That is the definition of a particular style of gun as an assault rifle is not necessarily a deterrent to a killer. However, there would be one very effective bit of legislation that could have a real effect on limiting the potential for mass type killing. That would be to eliminate all firearms with the exception of single shot weapons. Specifically,legal arms could only hold a single cartridge which must be manually reloaded after each shot. This would not only eliminate the potential for mass shootings, but it would also increase gun safety for legal sporting use. As someone who has a lifelong involvement in wildlife conservation, I am at the receiving end of a load of sporting and gun catalogs. The recent trend in ads for thousands of rounds of ammunition, high capacity magazines, and burial containers for hiding guns and ammo, make me think our so called civilized sportsmen are less civilized than I had hoped.
Firearms are different than cars or dogs. For one driving is a privilege, not a right. Dogs are registered with the local gov't. You are discussing personal property however. Your car is not impounded when there is a gas tank limit. Your dog is not taken when it grows to be 300lbs.
You only have to see time and time again when it happens. Janet Reno said decades ago said "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Many other gun grabbers are now stating the same goals. Feinstein, Soros, Bloomberg, the female democrat in IL etc etc.
Here are some recent examples from all around the world (Yahoo answers...blah I know, look at the best answer, it checks out): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi…
This is good as well:
You don't hear about how NY nixed the COBIS 4million/yr program that did not solve one single crime...yet was another burden not only on law-abiding gun owners but NY taxpayers. Canada spend billions on registry:
David Shaw, you mention that "there is only one reason for registration: confiscation." Has the government come to take away everyone's cars? Those are registered. What about dogs? Those are registered, too, and I don't remember any jackbooted thugs coming to take my puppy away.
Democrats have held the seat of Mayor in Rochester since 1974. That's 40 years. Forty straight years. Is our city better for it? Doesn't seem like it. It's time for a change Rochester.
The current leadership has been focused on slashing services to meet reduced revenues and not focusing nearly enough on actually growing revenues.
There's a generational shift occurring right now. Urban living is much more popular among young adults and new empty nesters alike. Developers have been cashing in on this trend by building new apartments, condos and townhouses in the city.
You'd think that the city would be cashing in too, but that hasn't been the case. There have been a lot of tax giveaways to the developers instead. The logic is that the tax breaks are a catalyst for the development, but this development would have happened due to market demands regardless.
Alex White is the only candidate who's talked about making sure developers pay their fair share of the costs of the infrastructure they profit from. I'm tired of being asked to choose between closing a library or a rec center so that we can slash taxes on luxury condos. New leadership is needed across the board and I hope people look to the Green Party to provide it.
You also mention gun registration. What is the purpose? Our founding fathers created a government which would not make the mistakes and tyranny of the past. Looking to history there is only one reason for registration: confiscation. How do you do that? Seizure of personal property. How are you going to do that? What reasons will they give? You fail to see how guns were seized (and never returned for years if ever) in areas of New Orleans that were high and dry and well-to-do. The Nat'l Guard was watching the New Orleans Police as they were reportedly raping women and corrupt. It has happened, it is not fear mongering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4…
Wow...rhetoric right from Soros and Bloomberg. There was already a 10 round mag limit and less per DEC hunting regulations, but you never heard that reported did you? Sensible? How? Why 7 rounds? Eight rounds and you are worse than a child molester, fact. You're right....crime is down...as concealed carry and gun owernship is up! The younger generation is being brainwashed....just as Eric Holder stated in the 90's, the plan to quote "brainwash" people into believing guns are the problem and bad. He has used executive privilege to block investigation from Congress (our checks and balances) of Fast and Furious. No, no citizen could fire back legally in gun-free zones, that is why the mass killers chose them. Isn't it already illegal to kill yourself and commit even a single murder? How is more laws going to stop this person? Long guns of any type are used in less than 2% of any crime, but since the gun-grabbers couldn't ban handguns they invented the term "assault rifle." http://www.assaultweapon.info/ Citizens won't be able to fire "faster" than criminals at all while they obey the law yet crimals don't. Look to Mexico, which has zero personal firearm ownership. Only to militarized police and criminals have guns. It is not about living in fear, we choose to NOT live in fear! You could never understand that until you are waiting for someone with a gun to come save you when it is already too late. The number of crimes where a suspect is legally killed, ran off at sight of a weapon or detered by armed security is not reported in the news. It is death, death, death...and you buy into it hand and foot. A polite society is an armed society.
This editorial references the gun deaths in Herkimer and Mohawk, but doesn't cite any law (either existing or proposed) which would have prevented those crimes. Nor what laws would have prevented the Webster Christmas Eve crimes either.
Please include homeschooling as an option many city residents have also chosen. Thanks.
@cityguy: That's quite a charge, accusing our city leaders (and a mayor who had been a lifelong Republican, just like his predecessor) of conspiring to keep the middle class from returning to our city. What evidence do you have in support of this charge?
This is a big problem, many people who can afford to leave the city when they have school age children. Why people in these middle class neighborhoods aren't sending their kid(s) to the neighborhood school would be nice to know.
As for attracting more middle class families to the city, I don't know if City Hall would like that. They seem to have a nice democrat voter base that keeps them in power, I don't know if they'd like middle class and potentially republican voters from the county coming or staying in.
Website powered by Foundation