For decades Rochester's only daily newspaper, the Democrat and Chronicle, has acquired the reputation of being a biased, liberal rag. Its primary purpose was to promote the social and political agenda of the editor, James Lawrence. First on the agenda was political correctness for white folks, which is to say that white folks shouldn't say anything truthful or honest that might offend other people. Lawrence's programme also featured social engineering and white folks accepting the guilt for three hundred years of black slavery and discrimination.
It was with this in mind that Mr. Lawrence and company created the "Unite Rochester" scam. It was supposed to encourage open dialogue about "the elephant in the room" ( white racism against blacks ).
It did no such thing.
"Unite Rochester" does provide a forum for the black community to air their grievances against the white community. As for the white folk who were invited to participate in "Unite Rochester," they are mostly liberal economic, social and political elites. They seek to maintain their elite status and liberal credentials by shouting "mea culpa," beating their chests with one hand while the other hand is squarely behind their backs with fingers crossed.
There are other elephants in the room, which Mr. Lawrence chose to ignore for obvious reasons.
Those elephants consist of accepting personal responsibility for actions committed and of black youths assaulting Burmese and Nepalese refugees, most of whom reside in the 28th legislative district.
Mr. Lawrence retired as editor of the Democrat and Chronicle a few weeks ago. Nobody, especially me, expected any change in the nature of that newspaper's bias.
David Andreatta, a staff writer for the D&C, wrote a scathing article about a recent incident concerning Mayor Lovely Warren's Facebook page. Andreatta wittily likened the mayor's claim that her page was hacked to the existence of unicorns. This was the first time ever that the D&C permitted the publication of a report that was highly critical of Lovely Warren.
A brief recounting is necessary here.
In a testy exchange with a suburbanite busybody on the mayor's Facebook page, someone purporting to be her told him to mind his own business in a less than politically correct way.
Owing to the uproar of this statement, the mayor promptly claimed that she didn't write it.
I firmly believe that she didn't write it. The mayor is a busy woman, and it highly unlikely that she has the time to waste on Facebook.
On the other hand, the mayor also stated that three of her staff has access to her page. This was an oblique way of stating that she doesn't personally respond to everything on Facebook. She has her paid staff do it, hence their ability to access her page.
I am guessing that "the three" are old, dear friends of hers. Which is why she exonerated them. She claimed that they didn't write it, either, and that her page was hacked.
Oh, come now, mayor. That I don't believe.
I do have a few friends whose Facebook pages have been hacked, but that was because they had left their pages open and unattended, or never logged off of a public computer.
How many of "the three" have done that? Don't they each have their own computers at taxpayer expense? Don't some of them have more than one computer? Are her nearest and dearest, who have been entrusted with appointments close to the mayor's office, that stupid and careless?
Or is it simply a case of her loyal supporters, exasperated by criticism of their dear friend, boss and mayor simply exploding and telling off one of her critics?
That I do believe.
What is important here is that someone on the D&C's staff didn't buy the mayor's story, either, and was allowed to print his opinion.
This is a radical departure from the D&C's previous policy of molly-coddling the mayor throughout her and her administration's frequent and almost regular screw-ups since she took office.
Thank you, Mr. Andreatta, for breathing a bit of new life into the D&C. Time will only tell if you and others on staff will be allowed to print more comments critical of the mayor and her crew when their actions so deserve.
One thing is for certain: had Mr. Lawrence remained as editor, you would not have been permitted to run your post.