It is hard to see how the naming of a street in France in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal would cause a one-point drop in Philadelphia's quality of life [Bell Curve, May 18, 2006]. Indeed, this incident may increase interest in Mumia's case so that more will belatedly realize that Mumia is not being honored for being a "cop killer," as is slanderously suggested by so much of the local media, but for being an unjustly convicted, eloquent spokesperson against all sorts of state injustices. The French, and many others internationally, see Mumia's case as Exhibit A of U.S.-style racism, barbarism and injustice. With so much of the world negatively affected by U.S. policies, it is entirely proper, if not vital, that the global community pay attention to this case.

In any case, locals have no standing to condemn others' choices of street names. Philadelphia is the city that insultingly dishonors the indigenous Delaware Indian people by tolerating the renaming of a major waterfront boulevard after Columbus, the explorer who, for money, power and fame, enslaved, robbed, tortured and exterminated many hundreds of thousands of native people.

John Jonik
Philadelphia

Having a little trouble figuring out exactly what's going on with you hard-hitting journalists this week. There's a quote from Brian Tierney on page 10 [Naked City, "Quote of the Week," May 25, 2006] and a Plus fucking Three rating for the same story at the bottom of the Bell Curve. That's all I can find on the recent purchase of the Inquirer and the Daily News?

Is it a love of "fair and balanced" media that's making you let this one go by so easily? Is it too much time spent advocating state murder and pretending you dig Matthew Shipp? Does it really take that much research to see that Tierney's a right-wing Republican donor and activist—if "right-wing" describes the special place between delusion and fury where Santorum supporters live?

Fuckin' chokers.

Matthew Sullivan
North Philadelphia

Ed: You're right, Matthew: That is all there was about Tierney's purchase of the dailies—unless you bothered to look at The Clog five minutes after the transaction was whispered about in their newsroom (before the story hit philly.com, mind you). And an hour or so after the deal was officially announced over at 400 N. Broad. Thanks for reading!

With all due respect to Mr. David O'Donnell, he did not get impeached "because he didn't say anything at a meeting." He got impeached because he held a meeting with our local councilman at the QVNA office, which made it safe to assume that he was speaking on behalf of the QVNA and its constituents when in reality he was looking to further his own interests and those of a small minority of the neighborhood [News, "One-Way Oust," Jenna Portnoy, May 25, 2006].

Mr. O'Donnell and his neighbors knew what they were moving onto when they moved to Christian. His rationale is akin to someone living on South Street complaining about noise. If he does not like it, there are plenty nice houses for sale on quiet, tree-lined streets within a few blocks of his current residence.

The neighborhood needs this street to be two-way. Changing this will simply drive traffic into the surrounding area and will negatively impact the quality of life of far more residents than the number residing on Christian. There is only one fair way to resolve this issue once and for all: Let's have a well-publicized meeting and have a vote.

Michael A. Ginsberg
Queen Village

Traffic stops as a measure to control guns in the city is at most a half-measure [Philly Blunt, "Stops, or They'll Shoot," Brian Hickey, May 25, 2006]. Think how many gun-packing punks are still too young to drive. We need even stronger measures. Sadly, politics will prevent any meaningful solutions.

America is the new Brazil.

Pranas Danta
Center City

I think the targeting of drunk drivers is out of control [Philly Blunt, "Stops, or They'll Shoot," Brian Hickey, May 25, 2006]. It's based on MADD's misrepresentation of the numbers—[former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William] Rehnquist said checkpoints are "probably unconstitutional … but [necessary] considering the carnage on our highways..." There is no carnage. It's all hype feeding the prison system and MADD coffers. I like your analogy, but it is saying trample on the Constitution to catch drunks, then trample on it to catch illegal gun toters. Police and these presently constituted courts don't need encouragement to dismantle the Constitution. I'd rather spend my energy saving democracy and promoting social justice as a way of saving lives than your route—but I like your writing.

Dianne McQuillen
Buffalo, NY

What a fantastic proposal you offer. Throw the Fourth Amendment out the window. Well, it was born in Philadelphia, and we can durn well trash it if we please. Let's not stop there. How about placing conditions on the First Amendment ... like, news writers must stick to the facts! Oh, wait, then the media would lose 95 percent of their content.

James Sergovic
Upper Darby

I would like to complement Jenna Portnoy on [Cover, "The New Book of Exodus," May 11, 2006] and comment on the letters that appeared a week later.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to state that my daughter Marne Rochester was one of those interviewed by Ms. Portnoy. Marne has lived in Israel for more than 15 years.

I found her article to be both informative and balanced but missing one element that would be of interest to her readers: There is an organization called Parents of North American Israelis that acts as a support group for those who moved to Israel, and more importantly, the parents and grandparents who remain in the U.S. and Canada. PNAI has more than 200 member families in the Philadelphia region.

As for the letters:

Zahiah Jeffries is most typical of those persons who unfortunately make statements without knowing all the facts. The problems in Israel and the Territories go back well before the founding of the country. In the 1920s, there was a village in the north of the country called Tel Hai that was attacked and virtually wiped out, without provocation, by their Arab "neighbors." The inhabitants had lived there in peace for several decades before the attack. In addition, the Jewish residents of Hebron had lived there for several centuries before they were attacked, again with no provocation, by their "neighbors" in the 1930s.

Jews were not permitted to pray at their holiest site, the Western Wall, by the Jordanians before the 1967 war liberated the Old City of Jerusalem. When Jerusalem was liberated, they found that many Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem had been desecrated or destroyed. The Rom Bom Synagogue is only one example.

Mr. Jeffries peaceful solution is no different than that of Hamas and if he thinks that is a possibility, he ought to think again. He may also not know that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to Adolf Hitler for aid in an attempt to rid Palestine of Jews in a manner similar to the final solution.

As for Barry Perlman's letter I can only believe that it must have been written with tongue in cheek. Israelis, unlike "Hispanics," are not interested in relocating to the United States or any other country. Israel is their home and that is where they intend to stay!

Mr. Perlman must be listening to the president of Iran, who suggests that Israel be destroyed and the Jews moved to Europe or somewhere else.

Michael R. Rochester
Society Hill

While there is no such thing as bad publicity, I was quite put off by the article on immigration to Israel that mentioned the group I belong to, Bubbes and Zaydes for Peace in the Middle East. For starters, it is rather obvious that the author of the article spent very little time researching our weekly vigil.

In the more than five years of demonstrations that we have held outside the Israeli consulate at 15th and Locust streets, we have never engaged the Zionist Organization of America in any way, no matter how nasty the vitriol they've directed at us. What would be the point in stooping to the level of a group that distributes ignorant and racist handouts, some of which have been so blatant as to call for the death of all Muslims?

And speaking of Muslims, why was there no information in the article about the Arab population in Israel, not to mention that in the Palestinian territories? Currently, there are about four million Palestinians and more than a million Israeli Arabs, according to the latest statistics from the CIA World Factbook. That right there is why there's been such a push for Jewish immigration in recent years. If the Jewish population, which according to the Factbook stands at just under six and a half million, is eclipsed by the Arab one—which will probably occur if current economic conditions continue—that would create an apartheid state, something that Israel's government desperately wants to avoid. The article's right-wing bent, while probably unintentional, came through quite clearly in the author's decision to not include any information about the ongoing conflict: While Jewish and Jewish-led organizations were consulted, Portnoy did not quote a single Arab source.

On a personal note, I was upset to see that Portnoy decided that it was unimportant to mention that my father, Eliezer Kroll, was the shaliach aliyah—head of immigration—in Philadelphia in the early to mid "80s. My late father was a strong believer in the State of Israel but, unlike the ZOA, AIPAC, and other right-wing organizations that claim to represent the Israeli and Jewish lobbies, he did not let his love for the country cloud his judgment. He raised me to believe in the inherent freedom of all people, Palestinians included.

Yoni Kroll
Bubbes and Zaydes for Peace in the Middle East

It sounds like Brian Hickey is full of hate and anger right now [Philly Blunt, "Lethal Rejection," May 18, 2006]. There are a lot of people like that, unfortunately, who can't really "see" straight. Killing anybody, police officer or not, is horrible. Taking any life is horrible by anybody. We are not put on this earth to kill. Mr. Hickey needs to calm down and read the reality of it all.

The death penalty cost tons more money than life in prison. It is subject to being overturned on appeal sometimes more than life. Killing them makes it easy on them. Killing them will not bring any relief to the victims' families. They are more satisfied knowing that the killer is behind bars for the rest of their lives and has to think about what they did every day. Freedom is a horrible thing to lose. Just ask the innocent men and women who went to death row for nothing. They will tell you what it is like, they will tell you how horrible it feels to loose your freedom. They will tell you that they wished they would be put to death soon, so they didn't have to spend one more day in prison.

My brother was an innocent man that spent three years on death row and another seven sentenced to life. He has been out for five years now and will never be the same. Our system is a mess and if you take the time to get over your anger and see that, you might be able to use your energy to fight the parts of the system that do not work.

We cannot kill people here or we are not better then the killers. We cannot take changes of innocent people being put to death. Some say they are willing to have some innocent people killed so long as most of the time we are really executing the right person. Let's hope it doesn't happen to their family member, then they will "see."

Amy Wilkinson
Dover, PA

The alternative to the death penalty is not "living on your block," but life in prison without parole—a sentence that could hardly be called soft on crime. It is also important to note that an IQ in the 50s means mental retardation, and the Supreme Court has ruled that executing people with mental retardation is unconstitutional.

Joy Rose
Media

Although I do not agree with Mr. Hickey's stance on the death penalty, we are in agreement on one key point: the capital punishment system in Pennsylvania is irreparably flawed.

Mr. Hickey asserts in his article that the system "breaks down" after the defendant is sentenced to death, but the facts show that Pennsylvania's system of capital punishment fails long before any death warrant is signed. Capital punishment is supposed to be reserved for the "worst of the worst" murderers. In truth, in Pennsylvania, the decision of who lives and who dies is based not on the severity of your crime, but almost entirely on your socioeconomic status, where you live, and the color of your skin.

More than 90 percent of Pennsylvania's death row prisoners were too poor to afford a lawyer for their initial trial. More than half of Pennsylvania's death row comes from Philadelphia, a city with only 14 percent of the state's population. Ninety percent of those sentenced to death from Philadelphia are non-white, and even when accounting for case differences, blacks in Philadelphia are 3.9 times more likely to get the death penalty than other defendants who committed similar murders. I believe that even Mr. Hickey would agree that decisions of life and death should not be based on the color of your skin, your income, or your street address.

Mr. Hickey points out that one recently condemned man has an IQ in the 50s. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 2003 that the execution of people with mental retardation is unconstitutional. Mr. Hickey does not appear to think that disregarding the Constitution is problematic, but recent polls show that 75 percent of Americans oppose the execution of persons with mental retardation, placing Mr. Hickey's opinion clearly in the minority.

The author argues that our system of appeals is too extensive. Since 1973, at least 123 death row inmates have been released after evidence proved their innocence, including six men who were wrongfully convicted and released from Pennsylvania's death row. Cutting down on our appeals system puts our government in grave danger of executing innocent people. I do not believe that anyone, even the strongest death penalty supporter, can justify the state-sanctioned killing of innocent people.

Mr. Hickey also asks whether one would want a murderer "living on your block." I would like to remind him that our criminal justice system does not make us choose between execution and having a convicted murder living on his block. In fact, the alternative sentence to the death penalty is life without the possibility of parole. Life in prison is a living nightmare, not a walk in the park.

In closing, I would like to say that all of us who live and work in Philadelphia were extremely shocked and saddened by the senseless murder of Officer Skerski. I am offended by Mr. Hickey's thinly veiled attempt to use this tragic incident as a forum for his own personal, vengeful crusade.

Lisa Ziemer
Center City

This is in reply to [Slant, "Hide the Lightning," Rodney Anonymous, May 25, 2006]. As an abolitionist against the death penalty, I naturally agree that "Pennsylvania shouldn't kill anybody, including cop killers." However, Anonymous gives mostly the pragmatic (and valid) reasons, and not the moral, philosophical, ethical, existential, etc. reasons. Moreover, his article contains several violent passages which I object to, such as "the scumbag who gunned down Officer Gary Skerski" and "the dirtbag deserves to endure the ancient Roman punishment..."

Murder, and all evil, is sad. We all wish it didn't exist, and we're all puzzled by it. Citizens and scholars alike have striven to understand it, and try to prevent it. But there has been little success because it's all very complicated. I believe that evil is something that we all have to contend and grapple with, not only those who have committed it. We have all committed smaller evils, in childhood and perhaps in adulthood too. And yes, in some sense those who have committed only these smaller "evils" are "better" than those who have committed the larger ones—namely, we've been able to "control our blood lust," or whatever—at least so far.

But it's not at all a simple matter, in particular it's not a simple matter how people who have committed larger evils have come to do so. The violence/viciousness expressed in Anonymous' article is something I've often thought about. I believe that there's far too much of it, and I wish that society didn't encourage it so much. Where does such violence come from? Yes, it professes to be about being horrified and grieved by the crime; however, as every good therapist knows, in a healthy grieving process, anger and thoughts of violence are stages which eventually give way to just plain sadness and an unwilling acceptance. They are not the ultimate, nor the optimum, stages to be in. I think of such violence as being just that: violence.

Perhaps people who tend in general to be or feel violent, for whatever reasons, and who also know that being violent is wrong, might feel justified in directing their violent tendencies toward criminals; they feel that that doesn't matter. I disagree; it does matter. Violence is violence. And I wonder whether people like Anonymous who feel violent towards criminals are, at least to some extent, the same people who feel violent in general, toward "innocent" people as well (perhaps due to the same emotional or psychological causes).

Anonymous asks, "Would we all love to drag the murdering coward down to the shores of the Delaware River with a sack full of wildlife in tow?" My answer is: I wouldn't.

I do not feel any satisfaction whatever in imagining "the dirtbag" enduring that "ancient Roman punishment," or any other punishment. The evil cannot be undone, and punishment does nothing for anybody. And yes, if somebody murdered any of my loved ones, I have no doubt that I would feel the same way that I am describing now. I have read about families of murder victims who have actually reacted in the same way that I know I would (sometimes not immediately). Often this is because of religious conviction but that is not the case for me. For me it's a matter of humanity, humility and compassion. And again, violence does nothing to compensate for the sadness of what has happened.

Marion D. Cohen, Ph.D.
Center City

Very, very insightful review [Arts, "It's Raining Stereotypes," Mark Cofta, May 25, 2006]. I did see the play [Some Men] and agree, yet I feel there is something there to say about homosexuality in the 20th century, but Terrence McNally and a new director need to figure out a context to hold it in. Incidentally, it was meant Stephen Bogardus not Tom Judson as the reticent group-therapy member.

Lee Tannen
New York City

Sam Shepard? Testosterone? How could that be?! Sadly, you were at the production and were not doused in estrogen [Online Letters, "True on False?" May 25, 2006]. It might have ignited a "coming out" party for you. Let's all hold hands and pray for the "theater junkie." Blow out your candle, Lars, or is it Laura? And so, good night...

Philadelphia

Does your hair crusader make allowances for bike racers [Paper Doll, "The Bush Hunter," Ashlea Halpern, May 25, 2006]? I shave my legs once or twice each week because I race every weekend from April to September and have crashed enough to know the value of non-hirsute legs when sliding on a road separate from the bike. Among the guys I ride with, leg hair is a sure sign of incompetence. So the question is, would hairy women racers become pariahs? Heaven knows they would regret their unshaven limbs when their road rash festers because of hair.

Your columns are always fun. (I was going to write something about Satan editing the City Paper when you wrote about the abstinence rally, but then I thought you probably were getting e-mails from people who really believed that.)

Neil Gussman
Via E-mail