Carl Carson 
Member since Jun 14, 2018


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Riverway plans head toward the start line

What part of, "while a media outlet may have the right to set forth and enforce specific and detailed terms of service for comments, I for one am unwilling to grant them the right to censor comments based on personal bias and arbitrary standards such as those Sullivan mentioned" wasn't clear? The distinction here is between legal and moral obligations. A better question would be. are you willing to grant the media, particularly a paper which claims to be an "alternative" to the MSM, that right to personal bias and arbitrary decisions on censorship (regardless if whether they've already done so)?

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Carl Carson on 08/05/2018 at 6:22 PM

Re: “Riverway plans head toward the start line

Sorry Musician, this issue does fall under the First Amendment to the extent that, while a media outlet may have the right to set forth and enforce specific and detailed terms of service for comments, I for one am unwilling to grant them the right to censor comments based on personal bias and arbitrary standards such as those Sullivan mentioned.

3 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Carl Carson on 08/05/2018 at 3:37 PM

Re: “Riverway plans head toward the start line

Mike G. - A simple analogy will demonstrate the fallacy of your underlying premise. Say a family is living paycheck to paycheck with high balances on their credit cards. They can barely keep food on the table and pay the mortgage and other household expenses necessary to keep their home in one piece. Do you recommend that they go even further in debt by spending thousands to improve their quality of life by adding a new porch, lots of landscaping, and a swimming pool? I suspect you'd answer "no". So why in god's name should a virtually bankrupt city (and state) spend millions on the same sort of window dressing? Not one of these proposed projects is remotely necessary for the maintenance of the city's infrastructure (which has serious problems). Not one of them improves the safety of our city streets (indeed, the Broad Street Bridge proposal may even jeopardize such safety). Not one of them address the issue of homelessness or the failed city school system. Not one of then comes accompanied with anything remotely resembling an unbiased business case that shows a positive return on the investment. The best that can be said of any of them is that they might make the place look better. To that end I suggest you read up on the subject of "Potempkin Villages".
As to the reasons behind the failed fast ferry. Give me a break! Are you aware that the business case used by CATS and Bill Johnson to promote the plan claimed that the ferry would sail three times a day , over 300 days a year (apparently there are no winters in Rochester) , and would carry over 100,000 riders the first year who would spend $92,000,000 in our area? When the physical impossibility of the plan was pointed out by opponents, including the fact that the ferry (counting loading and unloading) would actually be a slower trip to and from Toronto than driving, we found that the local media wasn't interested in reporting any negative comments about Bill's Barge. The rise in gas prices only helped to drive another nail into the coffin of an already dead and buried pipe dream.

7 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Carl Carson on 08/03/2018 at 11:18 AM

Re: “Feedback 7/18

Robert - My last response to you seems to have disappeared. No doubt a technical difficulty. In any event, I simply pointed out that, far from moving any goalposts, I merely responded to the various points you raised. As those points diverged from your original comments, so to did my responses diverge. I also pointed out that the various articles you cited were merely opinion pieces, none of which provided that long believed in, but as yet unproven, connection between campaign contribution largess and preferential political treatment of the contributor by the recipients of that largess and that calls for so-called reform tend to be nothing more than a desire to change the rules to give an edge to those unable to win any other way.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Carl Carson on 07/25/2018 at 3:09 PM

Re: “Feedback 7/18

Robert - Of course neither you nor I are in any position to know whether Slaughter OR Morelle have played by the campaign finance rules. So your continuing attempts to imply that Joe MUST be doing something illegal/unethical/immoral because he was able to raise more dollars than your pet candidate is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. That's not to say that there aren't crooked politicians. There are. Just as there are crooked reporters, crooked teachers, crooked doctors, and crooked neophyte candidates for political office. Bottom line is that large campaign war chests are no more a sign of a crooked politician than small ones are a sign of an honest candidate.

And as to that, "waiting for someone to equate raising money with being a good candidate", you'll have to keep waiting as no one here is claiming that to be the case. As for me, unlike you, I'm waiting for someone to provide reputable studies establishing an actual correlation between the size of campaign contributions and politicians giving away the store before I start condemning incumbents. "Pay for Play" is a catchy slogan. So is "Make America Great Again". And neither one actually means anything. Each merely plays off the biases of True Believers.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Carl Carson on 07/23/2018 at 7:38 PM

Re: “Feedback 7/18

Robert - I notice that bringing up the point that Slaughter engaged in the same campaign fund raising tactics as Morelle suddenly has you scrambling to replace your obsession with the amounts Joe raised to the safer topic of generic campaign finance reform.

Interesting word, "reform". While it's supposed to mean "improvement", when used in the political sense it tends to mean simply, "change the rules to give ME what I can't earn on my own". Thus, we hear calls for campaign finance reform from lightweight and neophyte candidates who haven't the ability to attract campaign dollars and who are less-than-subtly arguing that (as I originally posted) the average voter is ignorant and gullible and votes for whoever runs the most media ads, sets up the most lawn signs, and sends out the most mailings.

While you're waiting for your version of campaign finance reform, I'm waiting for reputable studies which demonstrate that it will produce better candidates and elected officials, and more honest and effective government.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Carl Carson on 07/23/2018 at 6:45 AM

Re: “Feedback 7/18

Robert - We get the point that you don't like Morelle, But unless you're prepared to condemn Slaughter for engaging in the same alleged "pay for play" tactics as Joe, then you'd better find something more credible to dislike about him. In 2017-2018 Louise collected $539,320 in campaign contributions. $187,771 of that came from large contributors. Another $332,675 came from PACs, while only a measly $83,877 came from Bernie-style small contributors. So, are you going to now condemn Louise because she was in power and got people stuff?

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Carl Carson on 07/22/2018 at 5:26 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2018 City Newspaper.

Website powered by Foundation.