Right to Work a misnomer
Regarding Mr. Lattavo's response to Bill Gillespie's letter:
So, SB 469 is a "Right to Work" law. That is just typical right-wing Orwellian doublespeak, which really means "Right not to be able to unionize" and "Right of the owner to pay you whatever meager stipend he thinks you deserve."
It's not a right to work, it's a right to be abused and ripped off. It's just another piece of legislation to make it easier for fat cats to get fatter, and continue to gut the middle class.
Give the politics a break
OK out with it, where did you find this guy Matt Brunson for a movie critic, under a rock at the Occupy Savannah outpost on Bay Street? I think this is only the first (and hopefully the last) time I have to read a movie review that includes gratuitous political diatribe. (See the piece on The Hunger Games in the April 4 issue.)
For those of you fortunate enough to have missed it, Matt takes a political shot by describing a character as one, ".....who hates the working class with the passion of a Republican presidential nominee....."
That is a really stupid comment and maligns half of the voting public as much as describing the character as, "..... a Democrat president who hates his country so much he is intent on ruining the economy in his first term.....", would hurt the other half.
I respect the right of Connect to espouse a political opinion that is somewhere to the left of California but I certainly don't expect it or appreciate it in the movie reviews. Those in favor of non-political reviews say ‘aye'.
In last week's "Here Comes the Neighborhood" article about the development for One West Victory Drive, it was mistakenly reported that a previous plan had been tabled because of bankruptcy. This was not the case; Jameson Properties bought out its local partners in 2007. The Metropolitan Planning Commission has recommended the current plan to City Council for approval.