Letters to the Editor | April 24, 2023

The Editorial Board has contributed to the discussion of the merits of a proposed new Center City Sixers arena. Concerns about the project include and extend beyond the effects on Chinatown. How will area businesses, residents, and passengers using Jefferson Station be affected during the five or more years of the proposed demolition and construction project? What is the plan to deal with increased traffic congestion and street closures? Please read Inga Saffron’s thoughtful analysis in The Inquirer. Will the Sixers arena increase the total amount spent on sporting events in Philadelphia, or will the money spent there simply result in less spent at the Wells Fargo Center and the Sports Complex? Will jobs gained at the new arena just replace jobs lost at the Sports Complex? Please listen to the recent interview with Sam Katz on WIP-FM as he raises questions about the financial viability of the Sixers project. Will Philadelphia benefit from the proposed Sixers arena? While over 100 studies have shown little economic gain to cities from new sports arenas, there is additional evidence that Philadelphia may not benefit. How much have other large Center City construction projects (i.e., the Pennsylvania Convention Center and the Fashion District) helped or harmed nearby businesses and neighborhoods? Sixers management will do what they think is best for their organization, but that may differ from what is best for Philadelphia. More debate is needed, including alternative proposals to update, improve, and revitalize the Sports Complex.

Jordan Spivack, Philadelphia

The news has been filled with stories of people shooting others who mistakenly or innocently happened onto their properties. Why is this happening? It seems to be fueled by the fears of others, which, unfortunately, are fueled by the incessant news coverage of shootings and crimes. That coverage places disproportionate emphasis on violent crimes, stoking fear in viewers which is out of proportion to crime statistics. It’s time for the news industry, and the local news stations, in particular, to stop focusing so relentlessly on violence, shootings, and other similar crimes, and spend more time reporting on news of wider import. They are spurring the unjustified belief that violent crime, although certainly a serious issue, is a much more prevalent factor in society than it actually is.

Ben Zuckerman, Philadelphia

I opened my Inquirer this morning to see on the front page a picture of Kinsley White, a 6-year-old white girl. She was wounded in a shooting for retrieving a basketball in her North Carolina town. Two days earlier, the newspaper reported on Ralph Yarl, a Black teen, pictured on Page A8, who was shot in the head after knocking on the wrong door. I’m still wondering what the key difference was for one to be on the front page while the other was inside. Was it due to one victim being white, one victim being Black? One perpetrator being white, one being Black? One victim being a girl, one being a boy? Then I read, “The Inquirer offers news which strives to present unbiased, factual reporting.” Come on!

Lloyd D. Henderson, president, Camden County East NAACP

Jeffrey Barg’s column asks us to use obfuscating language. He argues that using the word abortionist dehumanizes those who perform abortions. That does not hold true for any other profession. Do we dehumanize people who go into space by calling them astronauts? I know a few anesthesiologists. Is it dehumanizing or “vulgar” to use that term, rather than doctors who anesthetize? Does anyone think anesthesiologists are not real people? Barg’s argument collapses under the lightest touch. Barg prefers you to use the term abortion doctor because he wants you to confuse the healing a doctor provides with the procedure an abortionist performs. Meanwhile, he does not want us to use the term unborn human because these are “loaded buzzwords.” Abortion kills an unborn human. That is a fact, no matter how much Barg would like you to forget it by using sanitized, clinical language like fetus, a term which actually strips its subject of its humanity. The Grammarian should follow Strunk and White’s advice. Nouns and verbs do provide good writing with “toughness and color.” They also provide clarity.

Alexander D. Dragone, Woodcliff Lake

On April 1, our state resumed Medicaid eligibility checks, potentially cutting off more than a million Pennsylvanians from their Medicaid. The checks were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, but now they’re back, and it is estimated that 15 million people nationwide may be disenrolled. As a Medicaid recipient, I am terrified. If I lose my health care, I will not be able to afford mental health treatment. I rely on Medicaid and now must go back to proving over and over that I need it. We know the state has enough to provide everyone with health care. Cutting Medicaid will create a public health crisis that will exacerbate the crisis of hospital closures in Southeast Pennsylvania over the past year. If you’re a Medicaid recipient, concerned you may lose your coverage, and wish to get involved in fighting for your right to health care and that of others, please reach out to your representatives.

Harrison Farina, Philadelphia

While reading about incidents at Lower Merion School District, one regarding racism and the other threats of school shootings, I notice there is public discussion and action toward the offenders, yet no talk about personally apologizing. This may sound naive, but I don’t understand why the affected kids and the perpetrating kids are not brought into a room to talk to each other. Perhaps the parents should be doing the same. It could get uncomfortable and ugly, but perhaps they would also see each other as human beings with feelings, too. Perhaps the kids who made these mistakes would be sorry for them, and see the damage done. Maybe even apologize. Perhaps the offended would see them as less of a threat if they spoke to each other and received an apology. Maybe even forgive them. Remember social skills? They still should suffer consequences, but a face to face could be a better lesson learned.

R. Simmons, West Deptford

It seems that people are looking for a Fox News apology and seem to be frustrated, even angry, that one is not forthcoming. But even if Fox did apologize, would it really mean anything? How many people have we known who tell a lie and, when they’re caught, are quick to apologize — only to later continue to lie again? Apologies are only words and can be as big a lie as the original lie was. Could it be that Fox only settled because it wanted to avoid the disclosure of evidence that may have been revealed during a trial — evidence that may have damaged it far more than paying the agreed-upon settlement? A true apology would be for Fox News to learn a lesson from this and, going forward, to broadcast verified facts only. Not opinions, and most definitely not lies.

Judy Sloss, Glenside, jsloss@comcast.net

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.