|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Also this issue: Fantastic Voyage Sparanoia There's Something About Amiri |
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||
October 17-23, 2002
mailbag
(Re: "Who? Us?," Daryl Gale, Oct. 3, 2002)
Having been involved with MOVE for a number of years and having written one of the "missives" cited in the "Who? Us?" article, I feel compelled to respond to some of the issues raised.
While it is obviously clear that MOVE and its supporters took a very strong stand in order to protect Alberta Africa's son from being taken and put into a dangerous situation, that does not mean that anyone wished his father harm.
Everything that was done around this situation was done in full view of the public and the media. MOVE, and even its supporters, are fully cognizant of the fact that we are under constant police surveillance. To make the assertion that MOVE had the desire, or even for that matter the ability, to undertake such a methodically brutal assassination flies in the face of the facts as well as common sense.
In all of the years that I have been around MOVE people and their supporters, I have never once heard anyone articulate a desire to see John Gilbride come to harm. The prevailing sentiment was one of a desire that he would return to his wife and child and reclaim his fatherly responsibilities, this despite his documented failings. What people fail to understand about MOVE is that they know full well the fallibilities of people and will work patiently with them nonetheless. Now, in one moment of brazen violence, the opportunity for Alberta to have her husband and for Zack to have his father has been stolen away.
MOVE is known for taking strong stands and that is a fact. What is also a fact is that in all of its history MOVE has never been known to go out and attack people, terrorize people, much less assassinate the fathers of their children.
In conclusion, I would like to make the point that it is not at all an issue of "spin-doctoring" to express my deep sadness at the loss of John Gilbride. I say that as the person who wrote that "...it should make people wake up and get on the MOVE to ensure that this puppet of the government John Gilbride not be allowed to do what is attempting to do." I stand by that statement because it is a call to defend the life of an innocent child. It is not a call to murder, violence or assassination. I never met John Gilbride outside of this court battle, but as a MOVE supporter and a father myself, when I heard of his demise I felt a great deal of sadness for Alberta, and for her son, who now is fatherless.
People forget that MOVE is an organization that is comprised of mothers who have lost sons, fathers who have lost daughters, children who have grown up with their parents either dead or in jail. To make the assertion that MOVE is responsible for making another child fatherless is simply perverse and is yet another example of the media coldly exploiting a sad situation for its own ends.
Tony Allen
International Friends of MOVE Network, Philadelphia Chapter
Last time I checked, journalism was not the profession of pressing charges, convicting accused persons and sentencing them. Aside from commentaries, articles are supposed to balance various sides of issues and events by stating facts, not biased opinions.
In the case of the MOVE Organization's custody battle and the subsequent death of John Gilbride, your coverage was both prejudicial and slanderous. MOVE was attacked, accused of murder, as well as insinuated to be speaking with a forked tongue.
Here's my question: Where is the concern for John Gilbride, his son or his ex-wife? Why has the media been so gentle in their questioning of the police investigation? If MOVE is so obviously guilty, why haven't the police even questioned one single MOVE member or supporter a full week after John's death when everyone has publicly stated to the media that they would have no reservations in answering questions in relation to this murder case?
The police are being more tight-lipped than usual. The press does not even know the details of how the murder took place or what weapon was used. There are no witnesses. Where do you get off accusing MOVE of anything? May you one day be judged so fairly.
Lori Tetrault
Via e-mail
(Re: Pretzel Logic, "Skate Crimes," Howard Altman, Oct. 10, 2002)
Well, all I can say is how disappointed I am with the city of Philadelphia's view of skateboarders. In a day and age when skating and other extreme sports are finally getting the recognition that they deserve, our city still does not acknowledge these people as athletes. Two years of hosting the X-Games, which not only drew huge crowd numbers but also brought huge sponsorships (and hopes that it will return again next year), you would think the city would realize the potential of skateboarders. I was not only dumbfounded by your article but hugely offended.
I don't know if there is anything specifically I can do to help, but I do know that I would gladly stand behind Mr. Laman and Mr. Nims and help them continue to build on.
Keep us updated!
Christina Dowd
Philadelphia
(Re: "Jonesing," Maxine Keyser, Oct. 3, 2002)
I went to Jones; my server, bus person, and deviled eggs were fantastic! However, my fried chicken was bland and nasty, my fries were soggy, my creamed spinach was goopy like mucous and my corn -- corn! -- was awful.
I just read Ms. Keyser's review. My goodness, the way she was fawning all over this place was absolutely ridiculous! She's pretty full of herself as it is (which is highly annoying), but this review was embarrassing. And the very end: "What will follow? Just ask Stephen Starr." Is this not the most cloying piece of crap ever to appear in City Paper? How could you folks allow something that reads like a "true crush confession" from a junior high school girl's diary into your publication?
While I won't be going back to Jones, I encourage other folks to roll the dice and give it a try -- but not because of some lame-assed review.
Michael Williams
Upper Dublin Township
(Re: Cityspace, "The Asphalt Jungle," Steve Conn, Oct. 3, 2002)
The article about parking lots in Center City is excellent. I think the most important part of the article was when the author hit the real reason that so many are built: Because the trash that runs this city is nowhere near sophisticated enough or world-class enough to see to it that this place grows properly. As long as Stupidelphians keep voting for vision-less leaders, nothing good will happen here. And the idea of even comparing Philadelphia to cities like Boston or New York will continue to be a pipe dream.
Brian Pugliese
Glenside
Editor’s note: Cityspace appears every week at the start of the real estate classifieds section, page 120 this week.
(Re: Pretzel Logic, "Fit to be Thai-ed," Howard Altman, July 5, 2002)
It is with great deal of curiosity that I read about the Thai reaction to the publishing of the picture of their king as advertisement in your newspaper. There were threats and even assurances that Thai people do not look down on anybody, so why on earth do we look down on them? Well, I spent three years in Thailand and can tell you that it is absolutely false. There is as much racist snobbery in Thailand as anywhere else in the world. Many Thais make fun of other countries, especially Laos, Cambodia, India, Vietnam, Arab countries, etc. and many constantly bash Western countries and poke fun at foreigners in general, thinking that their country is the best. Pointing fingers at you and screaming "Farang!" (a term for Westerners) is just daily behavior on the part of quite a few people there.
Many respectable Thais will not have anything to do with Westerners, period, all while trying to preserve the myth of this great, "polite" nation. There are places where foreigners are not welcome. Daily rip-offs, insults and other such things are common. And it is even worse for black and Indian people who are often subjected to mockery and malicious laughter. A Thai woman walking down the street with her Western husband or boyfriend also routinely evokes smirks and disapproving glances from passers-by.
Their educational system taught them that they are the never-colonized master race of Asia. Many of them have been looking down on other nations for a long time. Talking about karma? Well, now someone has poked fun at what is dear to them. If they believe in karma, then they must understand that something caused it. I wonder what.
Gabe Modelewsky
Via e-mail
The pick for Todd Waddington's My Heart Belongs to Daddy! ("Artspicks," Oct. 10, 2002) incorrectly identified the producer of The Box Office of the Damned, in which Waddington's character Harriett Levy made her debut. The producing company was 1812 Productions, which is staging a benefit performance of Box Office with the original cast on Dec. 16.
-- Respond to this article in our Forums -- click to jump there
