Snow murder conspiracy?

Kristian Gravenor ended his article on the victims of Montreal's snow and ice clearing ["Icy legal realities," March 15] by stating that a dozen people were killed in two years during snow-clearing operations. His questions on the subject were referred to some city department which didn't return his calls. Is this the end of the story? Seems to me, if the city is responsible for 12 deaths, we should have more information on how much this cost, and the pain and suffering this has caused. Only by more rigorous research will these stories get out, and show us what a big government can do.

Montreal's media do not pay enough attention to the malfeasance of city authorities. Only when it's the cops who do the shooting do we really keep hearing about a story. When some tired snowplow operator kills someone, and the bureaucrats are allowed by the media to keep the story buried in the past, the victims are forgotten. With the coming merger of Quebec's municipalities, many such incidents will be swept under the rug by monster bureaucracies. It looks like the media, owned by people who would love to have the whole government go private, are allowing the state to get away with murder, at least by neglect.

--J.M. Wolowitz

Don't be PC, says she

How painfully sarcastic that Carolyn and Kaie's criticism ["No spicy noodle," Letters, March 8] of Chris Barry's interview with Kitty Mo [People, March 1] appeared in the Women's Day issue of the Mirror. While the rest of the world is taking pride and notice of women's accomplishments, here is a fine example of two who've missed the boat and are splashing around in a frantic attempt to remain politically afloat.

In all their eagerness to be offended, the two readers apparently obfuscated the expression "using her noodle" for "a lack of respect for [Ms. Mo]'s intelligence." Well, no. I do believe it was meant as a pun and although puns by definition are lame, it was by no stretch of the imagination offensive. Wait, it gets better. They proceed to capsize at the remark "enthusiastically pushing egg rolls." They ask if this is "an attempt to parody Ms. Mo and her work by insinuating that she has been enlightened by the egg roll, converted to it, is now convinced of its moral goodness and feels some missionary egg roll zeal?" Then they wonder if it's a sexual reference having to do with fast food and Asian femininity.

What? This argument is stretched so thin it's transparent. I must admit, I am impressed with these letter writers' success at stuffing religious inclination, sexual degradation, racism and gender-bias into a convenient little deep-fried package--no offencee to egg rolls.

All right girls, give the interpretation pipe a rest. It was a profile on a local resident, not the Gospel according to Luke.

Now, I understand the importance of political correctness, and how we need to push to the extremes to move an inch, but come on children! Can we at least try to make a distinction between "Mom! Jimmy's looking at me!" and "Mom! Jimmy's bashing my head in with a two-by-four!" This trend of dissection in the hopes of excavating offence is behaviour that is only excusable if you are a first year Social Science major or an Oprah Winfrey fan. Take note: if I walk around all day whispering "faggot" under my breath, I am most likely a hate-monger. If I refer to your sweater as gay, I'm most likely a well-meaning schmuck with a potty mouth and a dislike for lime-green. Let's not disregard the intention. Besides, we don't need to dig to be offended. Let's throw a collective tantrum at the child molesters and let it slide when our boyfriends refer to us as chicks.

P.S. For the record, I know it's a generalization to lump all Social Science majors, Oprah diehards and lime-green sweater advocates together. I was just poking fun. Grain of salt, anyone?

--Nicole Carmen

Correction

In the article "She said, she said" [March 8, 2001] Patricia Kearns was wrongly identified as the director of Studio XX. She is the programming coordinator; Lise Gagnon is the director.