By Michael E. Miller
By Ryan Yousefi
By Kyle Munzenrieder
By Sabrina Rodriguez
By Michael E. Miller
By Carlos Suarez De Jesus
By Luther Campbell
By Kyle Munzenrieder
I find Big Fish to be a great little place -- very eccentric and picturesque. The food is usually excellent. What Jen doesn't mention is really the most important draw: the food is fresh. That's its big appeal. Sometimes dishes are a little underdone or overdone. Maybe there's not enough breading or too much. But the seafood is always fresh and very simply prepared.
Perhaps the problem isn't with Big Fish. Jen may have failed to harmonize properly with her role as audience member.
Now the Good News: Jen Is a Heckuva Lot Better Than the Others
Bring back Jen Karetnick! These other food critics are really bad. Victoria Pesce Elliott: What a pretentious name! Her writing style is embarrassingly reminiscent of my ninth-grade efforts, when my teacher would say, "Lili, your style is creative, but avoid redundancy." Elliott actually said some drinks tasted like Slurpees, then continued with: "I'm not saying they weren't good." She also implied she regularly writes food criticism. Surely that can't be true.
Find some real food critics. I've read other papers, and they do exist.
If New Times Is Sensationalist Garbage, This Reader Is Taking Us for All We're Worth
Regarding Robert Andrew Powell's article "Pandering for Fun and Profit" (January 14): Okay, let's just suppose Alan Diaz sat in a hotel room with an attractive prostitute, (ahem, escort) and paid her $120 to tell her story. After all, if anything else happened, we wouldn't know. (Don't ask, don't tell.)
What exactly is wrong with Sonya's enterprise? You have consenting adults fulfilling a basic law of economics: supply and demand. Most corporations today are hiring younger and younger executives to work backbreaking hours with little or no time for a personal life (i.e., the demands of a relationship). For these men an escort provides the physical relief without complications.
Sonya is furnishing financial independence for herself and employment for women who need it. Being poor and honest is no longer an option; remember welfare reform? No one cares whether you can pay the bills. And no one cares how you earn the money to pay them.
Why the sensationalist, lurid cover and slanted article? Why not explore the reasons there are so few lucrative options for intelligent, talented women? That would be too tame, wouldn't it? Less advertising dollars when fewer people pick up New Times. Just what is New Times selling? Damn it, New Times is pandering -- to the lowest common denominator.
New Times and StreetSmarts Team to Help the Homeless
Leave it to New Times to discover interesting and unique things happening in our community! Kathy Glasgow's article on StreetSmarts ("Brother, Can You Spare a Byline?" January 7) is one of them. I was not aware of similar papers in other cities. I am aware that every person on the street is there for a unique reason and if that person is to ever get off the street, he or she needs help. I know if I were homeless, I would probably become involved in something entrepreneurial like selling oranges, flowers, or newspapers. I find it difficult to understand leaders who dismiss potential solutions for their clients. Like so many problems, homelessness has more than one possible solution. StreetSmarts should be given a chance to serve members of the homeless community who respond to it.
Krome Is No Ellis Island
I read Jacob Bernstein's article about Krome concentration camp ("Cleaning Up Krome," December 24) with special interest. The policies and conditions he describes didn't exist, to my knowledge, at Ellis Island. That New York City immigration center represents a chapter in U.S. history of which we should be proud. I was appalled that Mr. Dhine had to fight just for the right to light Hanukkah candles. Bravo to those who are gallantly trying to change things. And just two words to Mr. Stubbs: promises, promises.
Is DeFede a Pit Bull Only Natacha and Boris Could Love?
Sometimes it's hard to tell. Is it Jim DeFede's purpose to report the facts or attack other people? In a recent story, "The Junket Queen" (December 24), he unloads on one of his favorite targets: Miami-Dade Commissioner Natacha Seijas Millan.
DeFede is a great reporter, but what good does his rage toward people in power do for the cause of truth?
In Millan's case DeFede was successful in making her sound manipulative, confused, and defensive about her trips. But he gave us very little beyond that.
I guess the real questions here are these: Was fairness DeFede's mandate when he wrote this story? Or was it to attack someone who voted against the human rights ordinance?
Natacha's vote on that issue was wrong, but it shouldn't be the impetus for DeFede to go after her.
I guess we're all human.
Antonio de Velasco
Or Is He a Nattering Nabob of Negativity?
Why didn't New Times reporter Jim DeFede highlight any positive actions of Ms. Millan in his article? Why does the media always focus on trying to embarrass public figures? Does New Times think that is what the public wants?