Letters
The small print
There is a “scam” going on today, which although many people will avoid, still many others are caught in and end up paying for services et al, which they were not properly told of at first.
This is known as “disclaimers” (the small print which is so often becoming part of ads in newspapers or TV.)
Small print on TV is impossible to read, and is often just rapidly taken from the ad. At least in a newspaper, small print if at all legible could be read with the help of a strong magnifying glass.
There can be no legitimate reason for the firm behind those ads to refuse to bring all the facts to light in a proper manner. Why then should they be trying to hide those details?
If anyone is contemplating buying a product, or using the service offered, and there is a tiny print with the ad, I urge them to first ask the firm to send them a written copy of the disclaimer, at least then there could be no argument. Doing this will save you much grief.
Gerald Samkofsky
Chestnut Hill
Circus ban
People attend the circus because they profess to love animals (LuLu Shriners Circus offers family fun, Local 5-5). If they truly love animals, respect for these same animals should follow. Love and respect go hand in hand.
Stu Byskofsky of the Philadelphia Daily News wrote on April 20, 2004, “I quit circuses a few years back when I came to understand that what was fun for me was misery for the animals, the very animals I say I love.”
Circus animals are neither loved nor respected by those who dictate every aspect of their being. The animals’ lives are absolute hell. Richard Pryor’s poignant words resound, “But for the use of physical punishment by their oppressors, animals would never be part of a circus.”
Disgusted former circus workers speak of the “daily systematic abuse of animals.” When ex-elephant handler Tom Rider complained about the continual beatings of elephants, he was told, “That’s discipline.” Henry North Ringling, a founder of Ringling Brothers, spoke of the brutalities used and how fear deeply affects circus animals.
What’s more, Tom Rider testified before Congress on June 13, 2000 regarding the safety of elephants in circuses. He warned that because of the way they live and are trained, these mentally changed elephants are extremely dangerous and should not be around the public. They behave instinctively and unpredictably, regardless of training. Some scientists believe elephants want out.
Over 50 communities here have banned or restricted the use of wild animals in circuses within their jurisdictions as a precaution. They’ve joined countries like Israel, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, England and Singapore. Sears, MasterCard, VISA, PECO and Burger King, among others, no longer sponsor circuses because of the potential danger to the public and because of the inherent animal abuse.
So, having professed our love and respect for hapless abused animals used in circuses for your entertainment, you have little choice but to patronize circuses featuring only willing human performers. Cirque du Soleil and Cirque Eloize have appeared in Philadelphia to rave reviews.
Unfortunately, ethics is still a secondary issue to consumers’ self-interest. Let’s hope that more of us can embrace them.
Bridget W. Irons
Chestnut Hill
Let’s eat
As I understand it, the BID will now begin to approach potential tenants for the various vacant retail spaces in Chestnut Hill.
Please allow me to present my thoughts regarding this process. First and foremost, you must have a vision of what you want to create. Just filling the spaces is not enough. They must all work together and complement each other. Secondly, you must have a unified vision: the BID should be unanimous in what it wants.
Only when you have both of these elements — vision and unity — will you have the political strength to overcome the skepticism of potential tenants and the resentment of the affected landlords.
Please let me offer this as a vision: “Think globally and eat locally.” Center city is booming because of all the nighttime opportunities — culture, entertainment and food. And let’s face it, food is the greatest culture and entertainment of them all.
Granted, there are some very serious people who might think otherwise. They believe that participating in the local political process — associations, meetings, bylaws, committees, boards, discussions, voting, independence and freedom — is a more important pastime. To them I can only say, “Give me less democracy and more dinner. So, I’m shallow, so what: I’m hungry.
What do we need? An Indian restaurant, an Italian restaurant, a Mexican restaurant, a Thai restaurant — you get the idea.
And how hard can this be? Go buy the 2005 Zagat’s, look for the best restaurants in each of the above categories, then go visit them and offer to set them up in Chestnut Hill.
How do you think we got Osaka — great Japanese — and Cin Cin — great Chinese! If they can make it on the Main Line they can make it here.
And tell the restaurants we’ll match their rent! Last time I looked, vacant space was worth nothing. Even our landlords know that. And finance costs are so low, they can “fit out” a restaurant and still make money. And if they say they can’t, I’m sure the Chestnut Hill National Bank can call their bluff.
As for me, I will do the following: pre-purchase 400 meals (that’s probably $10,000, not including drinks or tip) from any acceptable (I do have my standards) restaurant that opens in Chestnut Hill before the end of this year. If 50 more people match this offer and, dare I say it, “put their money where their mouth is,” this thing could happen.
Now, that’s what I call participatory democracy.
Any takers? Call the BID.
Thank you.
Thomas Howard Tarantino
Chestnut Hill
Purple prose
As a longtime fan of Cafette, I was happy to see this wonderful restaurant prominently featured in the May 12 Local Life section. As a longtime reader of (and former contributor to) the Local, however, I was stunned by Len Lear’s breathless, cliché-ridden writing. Within the first two paragraphs, I was informed that Cafette was a “triumph of mind over platter,” with “a license to thrill” and “juice in its caboose.” I then learned that the restaurant was “quirk-alicious”! Didn’t Homer Simpson use that word during his stint as restaurant reviewer for the Springfield Shopper?
Lear then explained that Cafette owner Jan Wilson had traveled the “long and grinding road” but triumphed due to her “sunshine personality and cheerleader enthusiasm.” Heavens, why was no mention made of her true grit or her smile as wide as all outdoors? Toward the end of the article, Lear’s writing veered toward the surreal, with baby back ribs of the “I’d like to thank the Academy quality.” (Do they scream, “You like me! You really like me!” when you eat them?) As the pièce de resistance, I learned that Wilson moves “faster than a flounder through a Legionnaire.” I’m not sure what the last phrase means, but please don’t draw me a picture.
Sadly, this purple prose obscures an otherwise worthwhile article about this Chestnut Hill landmark. Like any good community newspaper, the Local has an obligation to promote neighborhood businesses. This is especially true when these firms not only deliver good value but contribute to the larger community, as Cafette does. But Len Lear’s over-the-top writing makes his article read like a second-rate parody of a third-rate puff piece.
Under its new editorial leadership, the first section of the Local has featured excellent, well-written articles about the Black Horse Inn, the Beth Stroud-FUMCOG controversy, and commercial vacancies on Germantown Avenue. I hope that in time, this notable improvement in reporting will make its way into the Local’s second section.
Thomas H. Keels
Wyndmoor |
