 
|
Letters to the Editor
|
|
POLITICIANS: TIME TO ADMINISTER THE TRUTH SERUM
Some Republicans seems to be almost as corrupt as the Democrats. So many
problems, issues, laws, world conflicts, cannot be solved, simply because
parties are guided by their own personal agendas. And it takes both parties an
eternity to reach an agreement.
The war on drugs should have been solved years ago. Why not? Dishonest
politicians. Illegal immigration should have been stopped years ago. Why not?
Dishonest politicians.
There are solutions to these problems, if only all politicians were honest.
So, whats the solution?
All representatives, senators, Congress members, the President, and others,
should submit to a "truth serum" test, once, or twice a year while in office.
The questions asked while under sedation would have a limit, i.e., no questions
about homosexuality or "how often do you bathe?" or "how many alcoholic drinks
do you have each day?"
Only extremely important questions should be asked, such as:
1. While you have been in Government office , have you accepted a bribe of
any sort?
2. Previous to being in Government office, have you ever accepted abribe of
any sort?
I once heard a saying: "Each man has his price." It just might be true, but
it shouldn't be for the representatives that we choose to run our country.
Truth serum ... unless you've got a better way?
Salvatore Pedi, Eastchester, NY
DIRECT DEMOCRACY: CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
Tom in Anderson, S.C., writes about the prospect of Internet voting: "We will
never do away with real people elected to go to Washington..."
I hope he's right. Unfortunately, voting via computer raises the prospect of
direct democracy, which would be the same disaster that it has always been.
We elect a few to represent the many because the many don't have the passion
to devote their lives to understanding the myriad complex issues that face our
government every day. We let them know our overall philosophical leanings, but
we leave it to them to become the experts that we have neither the time nor
inclination to be and to do what they feel is best based on what they understand
and we don't. Should voters be more informed than they are?
Absolutely, and the Net can -- and does, with sites such as this --make
it easier for voters to be informed. But only if they want to be. And that's the
difference. The Net doesn't change someone's level of interest. It can't make
someone want to be a more informed voter; it can only make it easier for him to
become one. So we need not be lulled into the utopian idea that the Net will
finally give the people "their real say," that it will put the power where it
supposedly ought to be.
The public already has its say to the degree that it decides to say it, and
the power is right where it needs to be: in the hands of representatives who can
devote their lives to public service in a way that the wide majority of people
can't. Or won't.
Which is the main point. Would Net voting make it easier for more people to
vote, and thus increase voter participation? Certainly, which was Tom's point,
and that would be great. But it should never be used to replace our republican
system of government. Human nature is the reason we have the form of government
we do. The Net isn't going to change human nature.
Clint Hayes, Dallas, TX
'ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT' ATTITUDES
I'd like to say that Frances Cerra Whittelsey cuts right to the point in her
"What did you see?" column. I'd like to hazard that, in spite of the maxim
"Seeing is believing," the human race is a lot better at believing than at
seeing, and it's really past time to learn to see first.
Children of course begin by knowing how to see and continue to do so unless
taught to believe instead, which usually happens by the "implied threat that
what they did might have been wrong, and that an honest answer might bring
punishment" method, (as stated by Whittelsey).
"What did you see?" invites an answer that is always right because what
a given person saw can only be known by that person. This is a definite step
above, a third question, "What happened today?" which no one can know every
angle to.
Claire, Columbia, MO
******
I was thoroughly enjoying your piece on "What did you see?" until I read
this: "What if we actually looked around to see who is living poor and working
hard, and who obscenely rich and at leisure, and asked ourselves why? What if we
tried to understand the connection between low inflation here in the U.S., our
bulging closets, and the slave wages paid to workers in Far East factories?
What is that liberal crap? Do you not realize that the wealthy provide ALL of
the real jobs in this country? If they have gotten "obscenely rich and (are) at
leisure," so what? They, or their relatives, have worked hard and earned
it. They, at some point made sure family knew that education is important and
began a tradition of high education. I realize some of these "heirs" live on
their parent's laurels, but so what? Don't you work hard every day at what you
do best to try to be successful so you can 1) leave something for your heirs, 2)
help the poor either through donation, community service or providing the poor
with opportunities to work hard and support their families?
People who have the bigoted attitude that rich people are all bad and poor
people are all good are as narrow minded and sadly misinformed as people who
think all black people are lazy and love watermelon and fried chicken. I resent
your statement and hope you will reconsider why you have a job. Someone with the
money to back your industry or your company was willing to invest
(while he played golf at the local country club) his money so you could do what
you do and enjoy doing for a living.
The liberal viewpoint is always, everything, everyone most be perfectly equal
and even. The fact is, some people are willing to work harder, smarter, and
longer than others. Some people have opportunities others don't have because
their parents before them worked harder, smarter, longer than others. I don't
think too many immigrants or native Americans were millionaires 200 years
ago.
Somebody, somewhere earned their way to being millionaires. Unless your
articles reflect more long range thinking than this article today, I won't
bother to read you anymore and I will not, therefore, contribute to your daily
work to become "rich" enough to enjoy your retirement and learn what "leisure"
is!
Candace, Duluth, GA
TABLOID HOUNDS: GIVE ME A BREAK
It seems to me that reporters today spend most of their time trying to
develop a story around a controversy or a opinion/statement that can stir a
debate, then present a panel who are "experts" that disagree.
The common thread in these presentations is, "We have to take a break" or "When
we come back so and so will say..."
Headline... Controversy...Tease... Commercial... On and On.
While some issues are really worth the time and effort, many of them fall
into the category of selling commercial time.
Look at the John Rocker issue. Do we really need a panel of debating experts
to tell a baseball league/team how to deal with a comment by an employee? What
made the journalist/reporter think that John's opinions were so important? I
believe that the potential for conflict was the attractive component of that
interview.
I think that most journalists today are tabloid hounds that want to tag some
individual with some "gotcha," fill out their resume with big catches, and sell
commercial breaks.
I need to take a break .... When I come back we will talk about something
else... Read a good book in the meantime.
Ralph, Baton Rouge, LA
WHO REALLY HOLDS THE KEY TO THE ELECTION?
Your efforts and your site are much appreciated. A
couple of thoughts:
The pols surely aren't going to pay any attention
to correspondence unless it comes wrapped in money. In my part of the world, I
would commend Rep. Mark Foley (of West Palm Beach, Fla.) for his attention to
mail and the effort he makes to respond. On the other hand, if Sen. Bob Graham
answers at all, it's a canned piece that reiterates his position without noting
any dissent one may express for his position.
Also, you write that independents hold the key to
elections: Then why are all the pols going out of their way to court the
Hispanic voters -- legal and illegal -- in spite of national concern over the
influx of immigrants? It really looks like the Hispanics will be the swing vote
for whichever party woos them with the most in the way of amnesties and other
favors. The Hispanics are gearing up for it, too. They may be out there when the
Republican/Democrats/Independent Anglos aren't.
C. Farrington
E-VOTING: JUST A MATTER OF
TIME
You are
really onto something. Although the U.S. is defined as a republic with
elected representatives, I think your website is about to replace the current
methods of voting. I believe this type of electronic capability will eventually
be used throughout the U.S. for voting purposes.
We will never do away with real people elected to
go to Washington, but I think the way they vote on the floor will be greatly
influenced by websites such as yours. Keep up the good work.
Electronic voting has a bright future.
Tom, Anderson,
SC
LET'S JUST CAN THE SPAM
With the
attempts to ban unsolicited e-mails and phone calls, why not ban "spam" mailings that
are:
a) not specifically addressed to the
resident;
b) drop-shipped to the post office, and in effect
are
not "mail" per se;
c) waste paper;
d) annoy
consumers;
e) add to injuries suffered by postal carriers. (Do we
want
them ANGRIER than they already are?)
Post office boxholders don't
have to put up with this Garbage -- why should anyone else?
Justin Swift
A PAT ON THE HEAD, NOTHING
MORE
Alicia Ault and Kathy Jones, you did an outstanding
job in addressing our representatives' and senators' fear of e-mail. Maybe fear
is the wrong word: They don't seem to fear mine, they just ignore
it.
I get automated "pat on the head -- thank you for contacting
me" form letter e-mail replies from Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes
which say absolutely nothing about the subject. I've never had a reply from Rep.
Steny Hoyer. he has, however, been at my polling place several times asking me
for my vote. Fat chance!
I have a friend here in Maryland who
contacted Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt. He told her he could not respond to a
person who was not a constituent in his district and recommended she contact her
representative (Rep. Steny Hoyer). The next day he was on television saying,
"The American people do not want a tax cut."
I certainly hope that
Vote.com can somehow get these clowns in Washington to
listen.
Howard Porter, Hollywood, MD
**********************************************
We want to know what you think! E-mail your letters
to
editor@vote.com. Please write
"LETTER" in the subject heading, and include a work or home telephone
number so that we may verify your identity. Please note: any
comments or questions about the vote.com voting site should be addressed to
comments@vote.com (not the 5th
Estate).The 5th Estate reserves the right
to edit all letters for length, clarity and content.
You may also mail letters to the
editor to:5th Estate/Vote.com, Letters Dept., 535 Fifth Ave.,New York, NY 10017
|
|
|
|
