Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: In Orlando, Bush paints Kerry as serial tax-raiser, March 21.
I expect news from my newspaper! I was dismayed by your choice of headline story and front-page photo last Sunday. I'm a card-carrying Independent so I'm looking for real news and balance from your paper. The photo of President Bush looked like a campaign photo and the whole front-page article might as well have been part of the multimillion dollar Bush ad campaign. I don't feel that yet another staged Bush rally with a story that only repeated his campaign platitudes and negative rhetoric about Kerry is worthy of the front page.
Then I noticed, buried deep in the A section, a black-and-white photo and short story on the tens of thousands - perhaps 100,000 - people who marched in New York in support of our troops and against the war. That to me is more newsworthy and more deserving of placement on the front page. Perhaps side-by-side these stories might have painted a more interesting view of the contrasting events going on in our world.
Please don't recycle sound-bite campaign rhetoric from either side - we're all being inundated by it over the TV airwaves, and you are not adding value if that's all you do.
Re: In Orlando, Bush paints Kerry as serial tax-raiser.
It's ironic that the Times, which devotes so much effort to "painting" Sen. John Kerry as a moderate, chooses to use that verb to describe President's Bush's assessment of his opponent's political record.
To say "paint" is a subtle insinuation that the president's portrayal of Kerry is not true. That may or may not be the case, but it's journalistically unethical to editorialize in the main headline of the front page. The Times' ongoing partisan slant of its headlines is a prime example of the kind of thing conservatives correctly recognize as liberal bias in the media.
And by the way, Kerry is no moderate simply because he tends to vote on both sides of security issues. He winds up with the leftists often enough to have been identified as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. That's no painting - that's an untouched photograph.
Re: In Orlando, Bush paints Kerry as serial tax-raiser.
The Times favors George Bush over John Kerry for president in 2004. This is the message you send when you put the Bush political message on the front page last Sunday, and on Page 4-5 of the A section, in the so-called report on "Campaign 2004," you report the position statements of Kerry and Bush.
Why not "highlight" both candidates' positions on the front page?
The "mainstream" media have been reluctant from the start to "call a spade a spade." The president has lied to the American people about Iraq, the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program, the cost of the war in Iraq, etc. Why can't the press call him a "liar"?
Re: Liberals gleaning Fla. votes, one by personal one, March 22.
I was appalled and disgusted at your Page 1 story by political editor Adam Smith, who refers to a grass-roots voter drive by poor black people as "liberals" gleaning votes orchestrated by "a host of well-funded, left-leaning political groups." Similar efforts by ultra-conservative, right-leaning, voter-disenfranchising ultra-rich folks are referred to as "Republican" efforts.
All this on the day when the "political" news is the Richard Clarke interview on 60 Minutes, somehow missing from what you would have us belive is a balanced newspaper.
Okay, I put up with your spin about George W. Bush. He probably doesn't brush his teeth the right way, because, God knows, according to you he doesn't do anything else right. But your editorial and most of all your inane cartoon regarding Justice Antonin Scalia in last Sunday's paper was beyond the pale. The picture has him as a dog. Inexcusable. Whether you agree with the man's politics or not, that doesn't excuse completely denigrating a person who has demonstrated ethics and integrity throughout his life.
When Justice Scalia was forced to retort that his judgment was not so cheaply bought by some cheesy duck hunting trip, I'm sorry I have to believe it. If not, why should I believe that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg could be in any sense impartial in regard to her abortion votes when she repeatedly appears at NOW functions? Yet, I do believe in Justice Ginsberg. As I always believed in the integrity of Justice William Brennan. Quite frankly, I didn't always agree with the results of the decisions he authored, but I always respected the person.
There is a clear difference between the political persuasion of people and their ability to carry out their jobs the best they can.
Re: Virginity vows: back to the '50s.
I'm disappointed by the decision to run Robyn Blumner's March 21 column. It is full of disdain for religious beliefs.
While trying to appear to engage in constructive dialogue, Blumner only succeeds in venting her contempt for the hundreds of thousands of Central Floridians who don't share her beliefs and who base their values in religious principles.
Not being a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, I still cheer its aspiration to persuade all people to revere sexual relations as something sacred to be shared between husband and wife. Really, Blumner doesn't seem to have as much objection to the vow of chastity until marriage as she does with chastity in general. But rather than just disagree with others' religious viewpoints and practices, she wanted to shun and ridicule them as well.
Unfortunately, if pledgers falter, I suspect it is in part because they are bowing to the pressures being applied by those in our society who mock and ridicule their goals, beliefs and standards. Blumner would promote a society where our youth become slaves to their passions rather than masters of them.
She doesn't address the main reason most religions teach virtue. It isn't to avoid STDs or unwanted pregnancies. It is because they are aware of the spiritual, emotional and societal damage that can be caused when people use others or become used, abused or objectified for sexual gratification. Infidelity and promiscuity never brought happiness and they never will - momentary pleasure perhaps, but never a lasting happiness.
Philip Gailey writes in his March 21 column (Spring's thaw stalled by chilling thoughts) that official Washington is becoming a fortress. Unfortunately, since the tragic events of Sept. 11, there are many examples of ad hoc security barriers in the nation's capital to bolster his argument.
As authorized by Congress, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) produced the National Capital Urban Design and Security Plan, a detailed guide for blending perimeter security with attractive urban design. NCPC is currently working with many federal agencies to find creative perimeter security solutions that complement the natural landscape and architectural setting, thus preserving Washington's historic urban design.
A key project identified in the plan is the famous stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, which is currently under construction as noted by Gailey. However, Gailey's description of the work is inaccurate. Pennsylvania Avenue is indeed being "dug up," but not as part of an "even tougher security plan," and furthermore it will not make the avenue "even less approachable for tourists."
To the contrary, the project will rid the avenue of the unsightly barriers and will make the avenue an attractive and distinguished tourist destination. When complete, the redesigned landscape will feature a broad, pedestrian-friendly plaza under a canopy of more than 85 American elms, with a new granite pavement, benches, new lights, and custom-designed security booths and bollards that are thoughtfully integrated into the streetscape.
This project is an important and highly visible first step toward restoring Washington's image as an open and accessible city. NCPC is committed to implementing its plan throughout the city so that a secure Washington is also a beautiful one.
Re: At age 500, "David" looks marvelous, March 21.
My wife wonders, after seeing the picture of Michelangelo's David, what's all the fuss about Janet Jackson's half-time show?