Keep track of your ammo
Shame on you for your finish to the H.B. 704 article in the February 21 issue (which was generally well written) [“NRA-backed bill passes house,” The Week]. If you want to say that gun owners are drunken jackasses, write it in an editorial, not a smarmy snip at the end of a news article. You’re the closest thing we have to good journalism in Charlottesville; don’t blow it.
Konrad Zeller
Charlottesville
The bad side of business
I interviewed with [Jeremy Harvey] in March 2005, but several things just did not ring true about his explanations regarding employment at Quadrant [“Who is the real Jeremy Harvey?” February 28]. Perhaps the rather large salaries clouded common sense for Manoogian and Hoffmann. I do, however, wish them well in seeking financial redress. Sadly the only ones to make out like bandits in the remaining saga are the attorneys.
Jennie Hamilton-Thorne
Hamilton-Thorne@vmdo.com
Bell’s record tells another story
In the February 7 edition of C-VILLE [“Locals Lobby For Reproductive Rights”], reporter Nell Boeschenstein described Delegate Rob Bell (R-Albemarle) as a “moderate Repub-lican.” Now, Mr. Bell may be a nice guy, and he likely wants voters in Albemarle County to think he is a moderate, but the simple fact is that he isn’t a moderate Republican; he is a conservative Republican.
Rob Bell is a self-described law-and-order Reagan conservative. Mr. Bell has spent much of his legislative career promoting bills that stiffen prison terms without ever explaining to taxpayers the costs of those increased incarcerations or considering potential alternatives. Addition-ally, Bell favors the death penalty for juvenile offenders (a penalty declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court). Even though there is a large body of social science research that indicates how crime can be best prevented, Delegate Bell typically ignores investments in that type of an approach to crime in favor of an after-the-fact-throw-the-book-at-them plan, which is usually more expensive and not much of a deterrent.
Bell says he believes in and supports public education, but he voted against the 2004 tax reform package—and the State budget—that funneled more funding to public schools. He cast this vote knowing that the Joint Legislative and Audit Review Commission (JLARC) of the Virginia General Assembly conducted an analysis that found that Virginia underfunds its public education system by more than $1 billion per year.
In the social arena, Bell favored a bill that would force women seeking an abortion to seek an appointment with a second physician to confirm the pregnancy. He has voted to impose more restrictions on clinics that perform abortions. He has voted against same-sex civil unions, and he has voted to disallow homosexuals from adopting children. These are not the votes of a “moderate Republican.”
Recently, Bell voted to deny former moderate Republican Delegate Jim Dillard (R-Springfield) an appointed seat on the Board of Regents of the College of William and Mary. Why? Because Dillard had the audacity to support two former aides in the 2005 State legislative races, one of whom ran as a Democrat and one who ran as a moderate Republican. Dillard, an alumnus of William and Mary and a longtime former teacher, public school administrator and chairman of the House Education Committee, served with distinction in the legislature for 30 years. Instead of honoring Dillard with the appointment, Bell chose to punish him for “disloyalty” in a pique of petty partisan politics.
And, even more recently, Bell voted with his conservative brethren in the House of Delegates to deny the governor one of his cabinet appointments because the governor’s choice—gasp! hold your breath—had spoken disparagingly of the State’s right-to-work laws. The appointment of Daniel LeBlanc as Secretary of the Commonwealth passed the Republican-controlled State Senate unanimously. Whatever else Delegate Bell may be, he most certainly is not a “moderate Republican.” He is a very conservative Republican, and there is a difference.
Mark Crockett
Kents Store
Abstain from smearing Rob Schilling
C-VILLE has hit a new low. Instead of having the decency to report on Councilor Schilling’s re-election bid [“Schilling leads with non-votes,” The Week, February 28], as was done for the two Democratic candidates when they announced, C-VILLE offers a thinly veiled attempt to smear the citizen-advocate reputation that Councilor Schilling has rightfully earned in his first term.
Linking Councilors’ abstention voting records with citizen representation is a far stretch in the first place, but if you are going to try, at least be accurate. Not counting consent agenda items (sometimes numbering 10 or more separate votes per Councilor) is only one of many statistical errors made. Your undefined use of the words “major votes” also gives pause.
Counting numbers of abstention votes tells you nothing—reasons Councilors give for abstentions tells you everything. Public records of minutes from City Council meetings reveal that Councilor Schilling abstained three times for entirely legitimate grounds of personal conflict of interest. That reduces his abstentions, as
C-VILLE tallied them, to four, or equal to Ms. Hamilton’s record of four abstentions. Meeting minutes also reveal that other Councilors have chosen to vote on items despite their stated conflicts of interest—Councilor Schilling apparently has higher ethical standards.
C-VILLE’s account merely reinforces the fact that Councilor Schilling weighs every vote carefully and diligently seeks information and public input before making decisions that may change lives. Most votes Council makes have no “time limit”—items may be brought up again at future meetings. If more Councilors were as discerning and aware of the need for adequate information and public input as Councilor Schilling is, and chose to abstain (or to “wait”) to vote until necessary information was available, perhaps better policy decisions would result.
Amber VerValin
Charlottesville
Through The Prism of experience
Amid all the noise about The Prism leaving town [“A room of their own,” Plugged In, February 14], I once again find myself in disbelief of what I read in the paper. I have always viewed The Prism not as a building, nor as a group of people but as a Char-lottesville institution. I may be wrong, but it’s my perception that it is the oldest continuously operated coffee house in the same location in the nation. I think Passim in Boston has been open longer but it has changed its location. In the last 40 years I have seen changes in the personnel of those who run the church, those who run The Prism, the volunteers, the musicians, the audience, and changes in Charlottesville. The Prism has outlasted them all. Much of this is due to the dedication of Fred Boyce and other members of current management. To have kept a coffeehouse alive during the Britney and Madonna years is nothing short of miraculous.
During those rare moments when I become aware that the ’60s are over, I realize that I am by nature possessed of a simplistic and utopian mind. Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if all those mentioned above could view The Prism as I do: an historic Char-lottesville institution dedicated to a community that is dedicated to it.
T. Rock Phillips
Scottsville
Think about it
Sadly, you ran a violent racial profiling cartoon on page 33 of your February 21-27, 2006 issue [“(Th)ink]. The cartoon is more than the cruel joke it is purported to be.
As a person of color, I believe the cartoon was poorly done and could easily be misunderstood.
The Virginia Organizing Project and lots of other groups and individuals across the state have been working hard to stop racial profiling.
Racially based violence is not a joke.
Laura Ramirez
Office Manager
Virginia Organizing Project