Carl Carson 
Member since Jun 14, 2018



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “RBJ cartoon brings protests and apology

Cupid: Your premise is flawed. Unlike subscription-based newspapers such as the RBJ or the DandC, which should at least pretend to be unbiased in order to avoid antagonizing subscribers, City is a freebie and can cater to one segment of the political spectrum as they see fit. They have no legal or ethical obligation to print cartoons or articles in praise of Neocons or our Psycho-in-Chief or related "diverse voices" , even though such pro-Trump bilge would be a laugh riot. As with CNN or Fox, they need only ensure that their political slant does not scare away too many advertisers to remain profitable. If you don't like what City publishes, go elsewhere.

7 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Carl Carson on 10/30/2018 at 10:49 AM

Re: “Feedback 10/3

I congratulate Mr. Payne on living in a democracy, " where the will of the majority dictates policy and laws." Unfortunately, the rest of us live in the United States where the majority is thwarted at every turn. For example, the will of the majority (or rather the will of the plurality) in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections was over-ruled by the Electoral College. And the passage of legislation by the various local, state and federal governing bodies is, for various reasons, more often than not out-of-step with what the majority (plurality) has indicated it wants. By the way, attributing creativity and other positive traits to the usage of marijuana by various religious cults is no more factual evidence of the benefits of smoking pot then it would be to claim that the blood sacrificing of animals (and humans) was justifiable because ancient religions also practiced those customs. That being said, I couldn't care less if some one wants to blow big bucks and endure the smell of burning weed in order to get high.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Carl Carson on 10/08/2018 at 11:42 AM

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

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.