July 17–24, 1997

mailbag

Letters to the Editor

PECO Boo?

It is fun and easy to trash the electric utility in the way that Daisy Fried has done in her article "Seniors slam PECO" (CityBeat, July 11). To most of the population, PECO comes to mind only once a month when one must pay them something. The target is, as usual, the "rich people" who run things. Unfortunately, as Walt Kelly's comic character Pogo said, the enemy is us.

I am neither rich nor one who "runs things," but I do appreciate having my toaster work when I plug it in. I also appreciate that our electric bills would be lower, now and in the future, if citizen action (such as that proposed in your article) was informed and was conducted in the spirit of civilized discourse.

The focus of the fuming and wailing is the Limerick nuclear power plants. Their cost escalated due to frivolous actions, legal and otherwise, taken by anti-nuclear groups. Many of these organizations still exist with the sole objective of eliminating the nuclear power option. They have found that delaying tactics such as unfounded lawsuits are incredibly effective at running up the bill, which make the plants less attractive. The lawyers (on both sides) get rich, nuclear gets bad press, and possibly the plant is delayed. In the end, science usually wins out over emotion, but everyone pays. Talk to the folks in Point Pleasant. Some of our "high" electricity costs might be traced to their initial opposition to the Point Pleasant pumping plant a few years ago.

Some of the highest electric rates in the country are found in Long Island, where many years ago a nuclear plant was built. After it was mostly completed, a fierce political fight ensued over the prospect of evacuation in the event of a mishap. Over time (during which the plant was finished, put on line, and tested successfully) the anti-nuclear forces won out and the plant was closed. PECO made a deal and got, essentially for free, the barely used nuclear fuel from the defunct Shoreham plant. Long Islanders will be paying for years.

In contrast, the construction, testing and operation of the Limerick plants was and is exemplary. No informed person refers to them as a fiasco. They provide a major portion of our power needs and do so with a flawless safety record and without burning fossil fuel.

The proposed boycott is misguided. If the idea catches on, it will cost those of us who pay our bills while PECO goes after the deadbeats. If it is really effective, it might hurt the low- to-mid-level PECO workers; the "fat cats" and the lawyers will do fine in either case.

PECO is still a regulated utility. If one has a beef they can go to the regulators, talk to elected officials, or vote someone else in. If City Paper wants to undertake some responsible journalism, they might publish a survey of electric rates among major U.S. and world cities in a future issue to put the issue in perspective.

Joseph McGowan, Ph.D.

University of Pennsylvania

—-

Bordering On The Absurd

As the bookseller whose wrongful firing precipitated the national boycott of Borders Books ("Bye Bye, Borders Boycott," Hit & Run, July 12), I was surprised to see that your writer declared the boycott over without having reached myself or another member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) for comment. After all, it was the IWW who organized the boycott in the first place, and we'd like readers to know that Borders, Inc. is fighting unionization as bitterly as ever.

AFSCME D.C. President Tom Cronin may be optimistic about the future of the Borders union drive, but your article is wrong to assume that he has the power to suspend what's been a national campaign led by the IWW with the collaboration of activists, concerned shoppers and union locals across the country. And when UFCW Local 1776 President Wendell Young says he never supported a Borders boycott, he's being forgetful. Back when this controversy was generating lots of good press for supportive labor leaders, his union not only publicly supported the boycott on the radio, in a flyer and in the UFCW newsletter, it tried to claim credit for the IWW's picket lines.

Out on the Borders picket line last year, I met a lot of supportive people who are proud to live in a union-friendly town. I'd like them to know that although booksellers at four Borders stores have voted to affiliate with the UFCW, Borders has yet to sign a single union contract — not even at their Chicago store, where negotiations have been dragging on for nine months. In fact, Borders executives are still attempting to manipulate and intimidate their own employees with anti-union smear campaigns while the company spends enormous sums to retain a notorious union-busting law firm.

A year after being fired from Borders, I'm happily employed elsewhere and have no desire for reinstatement. But folks who prefer not to help fund Borders' ongoing anti-union campaign will still shop elsewhere. Why not wait till Borders signs a union contract giving its workers a living wage before you reward the company with your business?

Miriam Fried

South Philadelphia

—-

Hop on Harpy

Webster's defines a critic as "a person who forms and expresses judgments of people or things according to certain standards or values." Harriette Behringer ("Critique Critique," Mailbag, July 11) seems to think they are all entertaining Harpies railing about "rotten plays." She's obviously been reading too much Toby Zinman. How sad that her standard for a "classic review" is one in which the critic walks out at intermission.

The Webster's definition leads to more questions than answers. Most important, I think, is this: by what "certain standards or values" are the judgments of critics being weighed? I believe that too often the standards and values of theater criticism are set by the newspapers in which they appear, and so have much more to do with selling ads or maintaining a following, than with theater itself.

We have the opportunity in Philadelphia to reinvent the relationship between artist and critic. We can shatter the "us and them" mentality that has informed the artist/critic relationship for so long. We can admit that we are on the same side: the side that wants theater and theater artists to get better so we can all keep our jobs. We can at least admit that we are all human beings, and that when a critic indulges in vituperative language and personal smears — as Ms. Zinman (City Paper) did in her review of Quills, and as Cliff Ridley (Inquirer) did recently in his review of Cooley High — that people get hurt. Criticism that hurts people isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

If Ms. Behringer wants to have someone else taste her food for her, the more her loss. As for me, I will continue to work in and attend the theater in Philadelphia regardless of the critics, but I will hold them to the same standards I hold my peers: the standards of good manners and common human decency.

Benjamin Lloyd

blloyd@dca.net

—-

Restricting Ballroom

Amazing!

The beautiful Georgian Ballroom of the Barclay was not "safe" enough to allow the popular tea dancing on Wednesdays and Sundays, yet it was OK to host fundraisers for politicians! (Political Notebook, July 4). Is there a message there somewhere?

Odd. On one hand, the city is knocking itself out to draw tourists, but on the other hand, it refuses to provide visitors and residents civilized ballroom dancing available in New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle.

Let us hope this extraordinary venue will not suffer the "gut-and-sandblast" treatment instead of sensitive restoration of its irreplaceable components. We will be watching.

Gersil N. Kay

Building Conservation International

—-

Amazing Fetes

Re: "Can't Please Everyone," CityBeat, June 27

John McCalla writes, Lamond likened the process to the recent attempts by the university to regulate the food truck vendors. "There was mention of it, then all of a sudden it was a fete accompli."

Holy French phrases, Batman! Is this anything like a "fete worse than death?"

Linguistically yours,

Robert Mammarella

South Philadelphia

Editor's note: D'oh. Desole, mes amis.