I agree with Will Moredock’s commentary regarding the actions of living politicians tarnishing the image of structures named after them. (“Cleaning Up the City,” Sept. 9) However, focusing entirely on a Republican, Arthur Ravenel, belies Moredock’s partisanship and selective outrage.
Does he feel the same way about the Joseph P. Riley Jr. Stadium? Probably not.
Riley’s negligence and dereliction of duty was directly responsible for the inadequate state of our city’s fire department and the deaths of those nine firefighters.
For decades Riley has been more focused on superficial projects instead of significant improvements to infrastructure and public safety. In 2006, Riley spent $3.7 million in Homeland Security money, not to fund the fire department or fix flooding, but to renovate the Dock Street Theater.
Hey Will, habitual negligence is far worse than calling someone a “bitch.” As for Riley, his legacy will not be defined by an aquarium, a ball park, or a golf cart tunnel, but will forever be linked to the Sofa Super Store and nine dead firefighters
What is your writer, Will Moredock’s problem? Regarding his article “Cleaning Up the City,” don’t you think he has run this bridge thing into the ground? (Sept. 9)
Does he have nothing else better to write about than to snub Mr. Ravenel again? I think this issue about changing the name of the Arthur Ravenel Bridge has been addressed and responded to by other readers, and enough is enough. Give it a rest.
Why doesn’t your writer go pick on the Don Holt Bridge or the Mark Clark or any other named highway or bridge? Mr. Ravenel does not deserve this, and I do hope Mr. Moredock will let it go. It is out of line, very distasteful, and certainly not good journalism.
Barbara E. Boylston
Jack Hunter, the world’s most annoying person and a young man who has finally stopped using his apparent high school yearbook picture next to his columns, deserves congratulations. Finally, after many months or more, he seems to have stopped obsessing over Sean Hannity.
I stopped reading what Jack writes long ago but continued to look at his weekly droning to see how many times he hyperventilated over Sean Hannity. Who knows why he stopped, but it is undoubtedly a welcome relief for those who do waste their time by reading his self-described “commentary.”
When he had his knickers constantly in a knot over Hannity, Jack simply didn’t get it. Hannity is a performer, not a politician or a pundit. He is in the business of selling advertising (something that Jack could probably never do), and his act is what we hear. He performs on the radio, on the television, and at concerts, just like other successful performers. Some people listen to his shows and some do not. If he changed his “act” to suit Jack, he would lose his advertisers, his audience, and his livelihood. Jack naively thought that Hannity somehow was in charge of something or had some special powers over people. To keep whining about Hannity made as much sense as constantly complaining about a role that some successful actor played in a movie.
In any event, the toothache seems to be over — unless he resumes next week — and Jack can blather on about something else with which no reasonable person agrees.
Gordon C. Strauss