Letters

Street Talk

On Solomon Jones' April 24 commentary on Mayor Street's talk to the NAACP:

"The brothers and sisters are running the city," the mayor exclaimed with an open hand reaching into the air.

It is hard to believe that only half of all Philadelphia high school students reach their senior year, let alone graduate with any useful skills, under this administration. John Street has taken a new, more ominous step in his polarization of the city of Brotherly Love in his undying need for acceptance and attention. Street believes he has little to fear in the way of political repercussions.

When he claims that "the brothers are running the city" he is bringing very little positive reinforcement to an African-American community that has diligently persevered through years of economic hardship. Annually, Philadelphia watches as thousands of members of its dwindling tax base flee for greener pastures, running from the crime, lack of industry, astronomical insurance rates and atrocious school system. Street even opposed the recent wage tax cut, which would serve to keep valuable taxpayers in the city limits. Yet the man has no shame in purposefully alienating an entire population of citizens and voters.

Our children deserve to see a positive image leading the city so they can learn what the dream of the civil rights movement was really about. Of course they deserve crime-free streets and a decent education, too. But what chance is there of progress when the most powerful man in the city is an arrogant opportunist, and a poorly spoken one at that?

JASON BARTLETT

Philadelphia

In his commentary on Mayor Street's NAACP oration, Solomon Jones uses the word "black" 24 times and the word "white" eight times. This is very unfortunate.

Racism in Philadelphia, as well as in the rest of America, will never end until we become colorblind. This is why Mayor Street's recent comments have come under such scrutiny: because Street, as our leader, is not being colorblind.

Jones' comment that "Whites don't have to enumerate what they run in America" is a moot point. Leadership isn't about race, but about how competent you are. And one thing has become clear about Mayor Street, contrary to Jones' opinion: Street is not a competent leader, no matter what his race.

Here are several concrete examples: Street was the first mayor to force the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers--who endorsed him in the 1999 election--to work without a contract; he failed to build the two new sports stadiums in a part of the city that would best promote business and gentrification; he's notorious for creating high-paying, highly ambiguous positions inside his administration and then offering them to his friends and relatives; he wants to take LOVE Park, a hot spot for money-spending skateboarding teenagers from around the world, and turn it into another bland, grassy park; he is a hermit when it comes to the press and public appearances.

There's no need to go into Street's race. As a progressive, open-minded Philadelphian, I'd like to remain colorblind. So if Solomon Jones wants to cling to Mayor Street's skin color, and embrace the mayor's incompetence because he feels there's some secondary cultural bond, so be it. But when Mayor Street fails to win a second term in office, please don't bring up the "B" word.

CHRISTOPHER PASLAY

Philadelphia

Funny Foto

On a Harvey Finkle photograph in last week's letters section:

In your April 24th issue, you show a picture of Hasidic Jews marching at a pro-Palestinian rally in Washington, D.C. The point of the picture, I presume, is to convey that even Orthodox Jews are against Israel. Nothing can be further from the truth, and you know it.

The Hasidim at the rally are members of a very small (under 1,000 members worldwide) ultra-religious sect called the Neturei Karta. Yes, they are against Israel and hope it is destroyed because, in their view, the Messiah can't come until this happens.

They believe that when the Messiah arrives a proper religious state will be established in Israel. They support the Palestinians as a means to this end. They are also as wacko on the right as your Liz Spikol is on the left, neither of them reflective of mainstream Jewish thinking. But it did make for a funny-looking picture.

SARAH RACHELLES

Cherry Hill, N.J.

Still Stuck in the Middle (East)

In terms of Liz Spikol's recent writing on the Middle East, I was wondering what "internment camps" Israel has kept anyone in. I had always been under the impression that it was Arabs who kept Palestinians in camps.

DENNIS PRAGER

KRLA Radio

Los Angeles

Unfortunately, no matter how hard Israel, the U.S., the Europeans, the U.N. and even the Arabs/Palestinians try to achieve "peace" in the Middle East region, the one inescapable fundamental roadblock is Islam itself. This is not a bashing of the religion but an acknowledgement of a central thesis of Islam that at its heart is the essential tenet of militaristic conquest, dating back to its founding 1,300 years ago by Mohammed. According to their holiest book, the Koran, the infidel, or unbeliever (i.e., Jews, Christians) must be converted or conquered.

If a Muslim dies in such an armed struggle (Jihad), he is promised immediate translation into the highest level of paradise. Physical warfare is an absolute requirement so that Allah is honored and worshipped: "Not equal are those believers who sit [at home] and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and lives." Surah 4.95.

The Koran teaches that if your enemy is weak, conquer him; but if he is strong, respect him.

This means that adherents of Islam keep going until they meet resistance. "Islam" means "peace with Allah," not "peace with us." In short, this context must absolutely be factored into any decision and attempts by third parties to interject themselves into any discussions of a "peaceful settlement." If only the Koran did not say so.

LEE BENDER

Ardmore

A Feed Beef

On last week's Feed column by Robin Rinaldi:

Not to put too fine a point on this, or to sound more than elitist, but it would seem to me that an alleged food writer who boasts of being utterly finicky, to the point of disdain, about the taste and texture of foods she's supposed to explain to a broad audience is hardly capable of doing her job with any real breadth and context. Of course she could probably do very well at reviewing any number of fast-food joints.

More seriously, you're hardly doing your readers a service by having someone so limited in scope and appreciation of the vast and infinite joy available in the great variety of this world's foods tell them about food. If Rinaldi wants to write about food, she should find a niche that allows her to exploit her lack of adventurousness. There are any number of food industries that would be happy to have her. A column exploring food isn't one of them.

PATRICIA BATHURST

Phoenix, by way of Philadelphia