Tim, I'd like to know who among Brizard's sharpest critics speak kindly of him today. Anyone who works (or worked) at RCSD remembers him as a ruthless dictator who did incalculable damage to the system. Take a look at the data before he arrived. Now take a look at the data after he arrived. Never (to date) in the District's history has one person done so much damage in so short a time; those are the facts of the case, for anyone who actually cares to examine them.
By the way, and as but one very small point on this rogue regime, did "the kids" whom he spoke of so frequently, really need his monthly car allowance to go from $500 per month to $800 (he wanted $1,000 per month)? I guess the kids needed him to drive something nicer than the $51,000 Acura MDX that RCSD leased for him.
You've captured it Tim!
Amen! The D&C has been on a downward slide for a while now. The issues with news coverage are duly noted. Add to that the inability to proofread, to provide competent customer service and to offer a printed weekly television listing for newsstand customers. The new "more" is hardly that.
The D&C is owned by Gannett, why would they print stories from Berkshire Hathaway (BH) and other newspapers? They would have to pay BH for the articles and employ less at the D&C. If you want to read stories from other companies, then buy a D&C and a BH newspaper. I think the changes to the web and to the physical paper were very positive. If I could read City articles in the D&C, I would just pick up the D&C and skip City.
Shallow insignificant stories and events lead to conversation amongst friends. Every normal human accomplishes several insignificant events every day, we enjoy learning that others accomplish the same worthless crap everyday.
Constant, real, education and certification teaches me significant things, City newspaper and the D&C teaches me about local and national insignificant things that start conversation with my friends.
This critique seems to believe that City serves as an investigative engine, I enjoy it for the stories on new restaurants and the coupons that go along with them. Your liberal slanted stories only inform me that you really dislike fracking.
ARobinson - You say that like it's a bad thing.
This proposal is meaningless and useless. It gives the RPD no authority or power which it does not already possess. Nor does it deal with the drug problem any more (or less) effecuvely then current policies. McFadden is grandstanding and only fools will pay any attention to him.
The Donald "Birther" Trump. Who could be a more perfect poster child to represent the mental meltdown so obvious in the Republican Party?
A businessman instead of King Andrew? I'm for that!
Much easier to be a politician than a community leader. Politicians manage words on paper. Community leaders aspires to change the hearts and minds of the people.
According to the legislation’s language, a “drug free zone” can be established for a maximum of 120 hours (5 days). What is unclear is why such zones need to be formally designated as the legislation does not appear to give the RPD any powers or authority (constitutional or unconstitutional) which they do not already possess to utilize in any part of the city where they believe that drug dealing is taking place. Or does McFadden believe that enclosing an area in yellow police line tape will scare off dealers and their patrons?
This will work about as well as declaring places 'gun-free zones' and thinking people will be any safer there. What is the purpose of posting an area as a 'drug free zone'? Drug dealers, who are already breaking the law by dealing in illegal drugs, won't be deterred from breaking a 'so-called drug-free zone law. It just adds another potential charge to selling drugs that will be pleaded down or the fine will simply be paid.
McFadden states “People are too comfortable in some of these neighborhoods in breaking the law”. Another puny threat with huge constitutionality questions isn't going to help make anyone uncomfortable.
I cannot fully express how bad of an idea I think this is. And it's illegal - not just on constitutional grounds, but I believe an illegal use of zoning codes
Kara-to speak in generalities about what "most" pro-life people are doing or not doing is not an argument- it is a convenient and entirely subjective distraction. It is an attempt to avoid the reality of a discussion of what abortion is.
Over 300,000 people protest the capital on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade every year- This is just a minority of the millions of people in this country who profess to be pro-life. How can you possibly know what millions of people are doing or not doing? Or what they believe about the death penalty or healthcare or anything?
This article counters your argument- it shows that among these protesters are women looking to help other women to keep their babies- for nothing in return.
Planned Parenthood makes a billion dollars a year on abortions! They sell abortions. These protesters are not selling anything. Who has the altruistic motive here? PP takes your money, kills your baby and then sends you on your way. People like Mary Jost are helping women (pre and post natal) with every possible issue- food, clothing, housing, you name it, to keep mothers and their babies together or to find an adoptive home- to help women give their children life and to meet both of their needs- at birth and beyond.
Many women who protest PP have had abortions and suffered tremendously and want to stop other women from experiencing the same pain. They want to eliminate the crisis for these women, not to eliminate their baby.
I am aware that there are few among us like Mother Teresa- she is the ideal to strive for- but, being against abortion, does not mean you want to see children die, or to be molested or any other possible tragedy. Many of these protesters are mothers- did they abandon their own children after birth, caring only for them in utero?!
The problem is, that it is very hard to defend the images of abortion that these protesters are showing. The Pro-choice solution is to divert the issue and demonize those who are trying to show this reality.
What a great idea! Adam McFadden is a visionary leader.
I must agree that this is not a good idea. In my humble, but staunch opinion --- the last thing we need is another war on petite, street-level, drug dealers. We know what that has reaped over the past 4 or 5 decades --- jails and prisons filled with mainly black and Hispanic youth (many of whom are literally slinging drugs as a means of survival) --- since in many cases they have little to no education; no job skills, and often, no hope --- while the real culprits behind the multi-trillion dollar, illegal drug industry continue to go free. It IS time for a war on drugs (a real one) --- on the big-shot, supper-wealthy, mafia-types who ship drugs into the harbors, and fly them into the private airstrips of this corrupt nation --- by the ton-loads. I have often wondered --- how is it that young children in our neighborhoods can tell you where the illegal drug spots are, but the Rochester Police Department, Monroe County Sheriffs, New York State Police, FBI, CIA, ATF, Secret Service, Homeland Security, and other law enforcement agencies that we have probably never even heard of (with all of their sophisticated intelligence-gathering methods, and super-technology --- technology which I once heard Dick Gregory say can spot a gnat on a dog's behind from outer space) --- can't seem to find the illegal drugs that flow through Rochester, and other urban communities --- like water flows from High Falls? I would propose as an alternative --- that y'all (city and county leaders) help pull people together who are sick-and-tired-of-being-sick-and-tired of our neighborhoods being flooded with illegal drugs, and weapons, and develop a comprehensive plan by which we make a concerted, collective, deadly serious demand that those listed above do more to solve the problem NOW --- by going to the root, as opposed to continuing to fiddle around the edges. WE NEED A MOVEMENT.
We're already dealing with an out of control police force, and Councilmember Adam McFadden's solution is to give Chief Sheppard and his thugs a blank check to sweep the streets? How about some real solutions like ending the Drug War and a serious conversation on ending the school-to-prison-pipeline.
Two points: Lovely Warren should debate Alex White, and equating public debate between candidates with private editorial endorsement processes is ridiculous.
That Warren is heavily favored to win is no excuse for ducking debates. She was heavily favored to lose the primary and we saw what happened. Moreover, who is favored to win has nothing to do with it. Ms. Warren has a moral obligation. Forums which took place during the primary do not excuse her from such scrutiny in the general. A debate between Alex and Lovely would be good for them both, and for the city. I hope Lovely will reconsider, and honor the desire for a more inclusive civic life here, which helped drive her own primary victory. I would qualify this by pointing out that the format, the rules, the questioners, and other such matters, are legitimate topics for negotiation and clarity between campaigns and debate sponsors. Advance attention has not always been given such matters in the past, and fair play has been diminished.
I take strong exception to Christine's assertion that failure to seek editorial endorsement of a publication is similar to ducking public debate. This community suffers from power being too closely held by manifestly unserious people. This was vividly on display last summer, when an unconsciously humorous sense of entitlement was expressed by one of our local Press Lords. City publisher Towler attempted to smear Lovely Warren as implying she had this newspaper's endorsement when she did not. I am not a supporter of Warren, but Warren did no such thing. Warren accurately quoted flattering things City newspaper, which endorsed Mayor Richards, had said about her. Towler's response was to grumpily suggest she would never say anything favorable again about a candidate she didn't endorse. This is a very revealing insight into Towler's thinking, and ought to establish her as exactly the sort of Rochester "opinion leader" we all should pay less attention to.
To go hat in hand to Ms. Towler, Mr. Lawrence, or any other self serving and self selected arbiter of the "public interest," to privately plead for their support, is NOT the same thing as a lengthy and uncensored public debate between candidates.
These "endorsement processes" are particularly demeaning to candidates, and their supporters, who observe a lack of open mindedness, or even simple honesty, by the stewards of such media outlets. It is lunacy to expect such candidates to legitimize such media outlets, or the temporary stewards of such outlets, particularly in this era of more partisan media, and declining standards of media conduct. A journalistic institution that conducts itself ethically will usually command the trust, respect, and cooperation extended a mediating institution in a community. Institutions that do not conduct themselves reasonably -- and City and the D&C certainly do not -- will find candidates, community leaders, and the public in general stepping around them, and it is long overdue here.
As a matter of fact, I find City Newspaper not to be objective in any manner or fashion. It is incredibly biased toward liberals and prejudiced toward conservatives.
I personally find Mary Anna Towler offensive in her prejudice and ignorance. Why shouldn't the republicans oppose Obamacare, it was passed purely by democrats and liberals rather than a bipartisan support.
There is a 1 year delay for business, why isn't it fair to have a 1 year delay for the individual mandate
There are union give-aways and exemptions, which are unfair
Lastly Obamacare whether you like it or not robs from Senior (US) Citizens so the democrats have a huge give-away to illegal immigrants to come to this country for free healthcare and be covered. There is no law that says you must have healthcare to come to this country nor is there a law to deport anyone who comes here without it. Who do illegal immigrants vote for? Democrats.
Please Mary Anna Towler don't fake your sincerity by pretending that this is helping people when its a government take over of healthcare and an immigration giveaway. I hope the republicans keep the government shut down until the next presidential election!
Wegmans is totally in the wrong here; they need to make good-faith effort to maintain the guaranteed pension plan. This time, the union is dead-on right.
Website powered by Foundation