Good AM, folks! The Journal promptly posts the days' LTE's.
WW, I once faced LTE writer Chris Geis in a moot court. I was the witness, he the plaintiff's attorney. I gave the poor guy hell, even though I thought the witness I was portraying was slack, and a reason his employer was being sued. Turns out, in the real case, I was right in my assumption.
Taking away rights
Liberal activist groups keep saying that a marriage amendment to the state constitution will take away rights of homosexuals — this is absolutely false for three reasons:
- Nothing in the marriage amendment prohibits private businesses from offering benefits to same-sex partners of employees.
- Nothing in the amendment prohibits local governments or the UNC system from offering benefits to same-sex partners of employees or students, as long as they do not base it on a sexual relationship.
- Homosexual couples can still engage in private commitment ceremonies and engage in private adult consensual sexual conduct.
However, throughout history and under current
N.C. law, marriage has always been permitted only between two people of the opposite sex. The amendment will constitutionalize what is already law. It is time to let North Carolinians vote on a marriage amendment.
LAURA CARR
Winston-Salem
Rise in jobless rate
The Aug. 20 Journal ran an article on the rise in the jobless rate because of cuts that resulted in layoffs of teachers and other state personnel ("
N.C. jobless rate hits 10.1%"). This contained the following statement from
Sen. Pete Brunstetter, R-Forsyth, in regard to the increased risk that
North Carolina could be sliding deeper into recession: "... it is more important than ever the state of
North Carolina live within its means."
I take this to mean that increased recessionary pressures mean that we should lay off more teachers and others until we simply no longer have a government.
We've all heard "family finances" as a talking point on trimming budgets when times are hard. Well, here's what real families do: They don't sell off Grandma and pull their kids out of school so that they can hustle on the street. They cut frills and take out loans to retool their job-readiness. And, with hope, they had enough sense when times were good to put money in savings rather than to spend it all in Vegas.
__________________________________________________________________________________
NEAL GROSE
Harmony
Job growth
Donald Kaul's column ("Can't anybody here play this game?" Aug.19) points to the insanity of Republican deficit-reduction efforts at a time when job losses in our country are so immense. Placing restrictions on our government's ability to stimulate job growth will push our economy into a depression.
Kaul is also right in pointing out that
President Obama has not provided effective leadership in developing a successful job-creation program. Most economists have told us that this is the time not to reduce spending but for the
Obama administration to offer a robust new economic program to create new jobs. Our unemployed workers need a job plan that is big.
Among other things, the government would establish a federally administered program for jobs in child care, education, public health, construction,
green energy, recreation and the arts. A serious jobs program would ensure that there are federal funds to hire teachers, police officers and firefighters who have lost their jobs.
These and other stimulus measures would create jobs, give families needed money, which they would spend, giving businesses the incentive to hire more workers. Some of this stimulus can be paid for by revising our tax laws so that wealthy families as well as corporations will be required to pay their fair share of our tax burden, which they do not do now.
STANTON TEFFT
Winston-Salem
Common ground
John Railey's Aug. 21 column ("Forget, hell! It's past time for shared history") was thought-provoking and well done.
There is much common ground between the descendants of slaves and the descendants of Confederate soldiers, as
James Webb, the descendant of Confederate soldiers, explains in his book "Born Fighting."
The typical Confederate soldier did not own slaves or fight for slavery, but this fact is lost in any debate over the Civil War simply because it is hard for us to rationalize it with the fact that the South attempted to secede from the Union because its political elite wanted to preserve slavery. As we see in current politics, however, the desires of the common person and the political elite are not always aligned. This fact also gets lost in the debate over the Confederate battle flag, which, sadly, was appropriated by those who fiercely opposed desegregation into the 1960s.
Confederate soldier memorials in our state are part of our history. But as
Railey points out, memorials to much more of our other history remain to be built. All these memorials can share the same high ground.
Forty-eight years ago this month,
Martin Luther King prayed for the day that "the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." We have some catching up to do as a society, but we are getting there, and that day will be a blessed one indeed.
CHRIS GEIS
Winston-Salem
Sum It Up
Are you satisfied with the work of the state legislature's new Republican majority? Respond to
letters@wsjournal.com and put "Sum It Up" in the subject header. Only signed entries please, no anonymous ones. Briefer responses receive preference in print.
Correspondent of the Week
Tethering
When I was 10 I tied my dog to a tree to keep her in the yard while I ran a short errand. An hour later when I got back I found that she had wrapped the rope around a nearby shrub and trapped herself. I vowed to never tether a dog again.
Twenty years ago while visiting relatives I went outside and found my wife's young niece being choked by a chain around her neck, the large puppy tethered by it struggling to get away, tightening it like a noose. After several attempts I managed to control the panicked dog and loosen the tether, undoubtedly saving the girl's life.
Six years ago I got a frantic call from a friend. Her large dog was tethered and jumped over a fence, hanging itself. I had to cut the cable to get the corpse on the ground.
Five years ago in Winston-Salem I stopped to avoid a heavy chain being dragged across the road 25 feet behind a large dog. I got the dog into my car and found the chain attached around its neck with a rusted bolt. I took the dog and chain to the city shelter and hoped that the owner would not be found.
Why is it that a young boy can make a decision against such an obviously inhumane practice in one second while adults can't, or insist on musing over it for months ("Panel shows support for tethering ban," Aug. 12)?
STEVE AUFFINGER
