To this date, I have not been able to obtain Mr. Scarantino's response to my questions about some of the factual errors in his article and his interview published in the Alibi [The Real Side, “The Man Who Got Iglesias,” Talking Points, “A Conversation with David Iglesias,” May 24-30] namely:
1) “I never thought about them [ACVR] again until I saw Rogers boasting about forcing Iglesias out as New Mexico's top federal law enforcement official”
2) “If Rove resists giving evidence, why can't Congress go around him and subpoena New Mexicans like Rogers ... who have bragged about getting rid of you [David Iglesias]?"
I confess I am a registered Republican and an attorney. I will go further: I am also concerned about public corruption and election integrity. I may have committed other crimes, depending on your political views. However, “boasting" and “bragging about getting rid of David Iglesias" are not on any honest list of my possible sins.
Of course, these and other fresh excesses and exaggerations will be necessary to feed the “scandal" because yesterday's inventions are dead or dying: “Constitutional crisis," “feeling violated," “obstruction of justice," “ethical improprieties," “criminal charges," “Senate rules issues," “improper pressure,” yada, yada, yada. This partisan bleating and blather will continue until the the Democratic media/Internet haul the tired empty carcass of some fabricated “scandal" to the election goal in early November 2008. There is no chance Mr. Scarantino and his party want the next election to turn on a debate about the Congressional leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid or the Presidential qualities of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Paul J. Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation states in his letter [“Progressively Up in Arms,” June 7-13] that the city shouldn’t blow money on a Central Avenue streetcar system because “Who will lose? If you don’t own property along Central and you’d rather expand Rapid Ride or any other transportation service, you will. Who will benefit? Wealthy property owners on Central and the developers they hire, of course!”
If he wants to be considered consistent, I would expect Mr. Gessing to take a look at Paseo del Norte and the extension through Petroglyph National Monument and make a similar winner/loser conclusion. When we were asked to approve bonds for that project, backers of the expressway appealed to our emotions and sympathy for Westsiders. They were experiencing the most terrible congestion, and emergency vehicles might never make it in time!
But was that why Westside landowners and developers filled the campaign coffers of Mayor Chavez and many city councilors? Was it their good hearts that led them to pay hefty sums to produce advertisements for passing the bonds? We will have spent many millions of dollars for new fire and police stations, libraries and parks, besides the cost of the new expressways and arteries, to serve all the new folks they plan to build houses for. Impact fees cover a portion of this, but not all, by a long shot. I won’t be using any of those services. Why should I be taxed to pay for them? I think the basis of Mr. Gessing’s argument is that if you won’t be using the services you shouldn’t be asked to pay for them.
Looking again at Central and the streetcar, you can make the case that if you have a fixed public transportation in place, there’s more incentive for redevelopment. And at least in this part of town population growth that might be produced by increased density along Central won’t require us to put in new libraries, police and fire stations, and parks.
The recent reviews by Jennifer Wohletz and Andres Torrez left me wanting more about the restaurants and less about the writers' pasts. If I want stories from their lives I'll check out their autobiographies.
Both reviewers seemed to have some sort of preconception of what things should be like rather than what was. I am not sure what that was based on. A friend's recommendation? Reviewers should have approached each restaurant with a completely open mind.
Torrez has a predilection for French wines. Fine. Some French wines are good. Some are really good. Some taste like horse piss. Many vintners use them as a starting point. But to boast of them being better than California wines is not only wrong, it's just plain stupid.
It is not enough just to "dis" a place or a dish. It is really too easy. A good reviewer, when they hit a dissonance, will dig deeper. The question becomes more of “What is really going on here that I am reacting this way?” It may be crap, but why is it crap.
My wife and I often select places to eat based on reviews. Based on their reviews, I only learned who I don't want to eat with.
[RE: Film Review, “Sacco and Vanzetti,” May 17-23] I consider myself middle of the road, neither liberal nor conservative. But the overt love affair the Alibi seems to be carrying on with the left is sickening. Especially the comparison of Sacco and Vanzetti to modern terrorists. There was a prison inmate who allegedly confessed to the crimes Sacco and Vanzetti were accused of. No outside party has "taken credit" for any of the crimes modern terrorists are accused of. If there is any concrete, indisputable evidence of conspiracy to blame terrorist attacks on undeserving parties, I am willing to accept it; but until then the majority of Americans are sick of lame, obvious and ineffective attempts to subvert American security processes.
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.