Mrs. Lindsay Patterson
In reference to "A leading light of Winston-Salem deserves continued honor" (March 3), Randell Jones' guest column about Mrs. Lindsay Patterson was quite interesting. I have often run across her in my research for Reynolda House Museum of American Art and its founding president, Barbara Babcock Millhouse. Patterson does, indeed, deserve to be remembered for all of her hard work on behalf of Winston-Salem and North Carolina.
One small note, however. Her husband's name was J. Lindsay Patterson. He was an attorney here in Winston-Salem and also very active in community affairs. It is my understanding that she didn't call herself Lindsay Patterson but rather Mrs. Lindsay Patterson. Like most women of the time, she was known by her husband's name and the courtesy title Mrs., sometimes known as her married name.
She and her good friend, Kate Bitting Reynolds (Mrs. W.N. Reynolds), often worked together on community and DAR projects. In the articles about the two that appeared in the Journal, Kate Bitting Reynolds was most often referred to as Mrs. W.N. Reynolds. A second example is that Katharine Reynolds, another friend of her, was referred to as Mrs. R.J. Reynolds.
Mrs. Patterson worked on numerous projects. She had one of my favorite photos of Reynolda (which I have attached) published in House Beautiful in 1917.
SHEROLD DRAKE HOLLINGSWORTH
Winston-Salem
Editor's note: Due to an editing error, the references to "Mrs." were removed from Randell Jones' guest column. Mrs. Patterson's first name was Lucy.
Horse abuser
Besides being a most horrendous act, it also boggles the mind. How can a man sit in his house, get comfortable in a chair, watch TV and have a meal, knowing he has left over 30 horses to starve to death outside his home ("Man convicted of horse neglect," March 8)? No matter what this man was going through in his life, he still had to be aware enough to know that those animals needed food and water and care.
If he couldn't do it himself anymore, he needed to reach out to someone — anyone — and say, "I can't take care of them any longer. Please help me figure out what to do." Call the animal shelter. Call a friend. Call a neighbor. Call the police. Call the neighborhood church. Call someone. Anyone! You don't turn and walk away from 30 living, breathing, helpless, dependent animals just because your life got tough. Their lives got tougher.
I hope these horses will be given the lives that they deserve to have.
PAMELA J. PRICE
Winston-Salem
Theology into laws
I'm very concerned that there is a strong attempt to place one theological perspective into law. The religious right is attempting to define a fertilized egg as a person, to limit the use of contraception and to promote the idea that sexual relations are for the sole purpose of creating children. These ideas are prominent in Roman Catholic teachings, and some have been picked up by evangelicals.
The irony is that the people who promote these ideas as laws are quick to guard against Shariah law. Shariah simply attempts to codify the teachings of the Quran into laws for daily living for Muslims. Those in the religious right promoting the laws regarding sex are proposing a Christian version of Shariah by attempting to codify their interpretation of the Bible's teaching regarding sexual conduct.
I'm in favor of enacting laws based on secular political information while letting the various religions define appropriate conduct for their adherents. Christianity and other religions have prospered in the United States because we have insisted on separation of politics and religions. Let's not violate that separation, because it has greatly aided our development and hold on freedom.
PAUL S. KENNEDY
Winston Salem
Finish the Thought
Briefly complete the sentence below and send it to us at letters@wsjournal.com. We'll print some of the results in a few days. Only signed entries, please, no anonymous ones.
"America should only go to war if …"
"America should only go to war if.........it's necessary to keep Obama in office."
ReplyDelete-signed, typical Democrat
If its vital national interests are threatened, and there are no better options.
ReplyDeleteThe interests of foreign powers, like Israel, should be secondary.
"America should only go to war if"..When our too long ignored enemies right here at home have been defeated.
ReplyDeleteLte3...darn right! The religion of Secular Humanism hates competition. Keep a sharp eye out. The Knights Templar will be galloping through our shopping malls very soon.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShave 'em off, then use 'Sharpie'.
Delete"America should only go to war if" . . .Ron Paul agrees.
ReplyDeleteSenator Claims 'Snooki' Knows More Than Obama About Heathcare
ReplyDeletehttp://perezhilton.com/2010-03-02-republican-senator-claims-snooki-knows-more-than-obama-about-heathcare
Obamacare was projected to cost 900 billion, now it's projected to cost 1.76 trillion.
DeleteAnytime a Democrat promises anything, people should know it's a lie, especially after the Clinton years.
America should go to war only as a last resort.
ReplyDeleteThe US has been involved in 12 actual wars. Only four of those, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War and World War II meet the "last resort" test. The others were unnecessary.
There has hardly been a year in our history when US troops were NOT sent to a foreign country for one reason or another. The incidents number in the hundreds. Many were justified (Tripoli 1801-05, for instance)...many more were not (Grenada 1983, for instance).
The Catholic Church in America is obsolete. A majority of American Catholics support the healthcare mandate for birth control. Over 90% of Catholic women regularly use birth control. Yet Archbishop Dolan natters on as if he speaks for all American Catholics. He clearly does not.
ReplyDeleteThe Pope and his minions are out of touch with their own members. Of course, they always have been. That is why they rule by edict from their tiny enclave in Rome, where they never have to come in contact with the peons.
"Shave 'em off, then use 'Sharpie'."
ReplyDeleteAgain with the insults? Say what you really mean, Tim.
. . . and you have NO CLUE why "liberals" try to ban "conservatives" from forums such as this . . .
Delete. . . Tim?
The truth hurts, doesn't it Snooki?
DeleteJust like a Republican to skirt the issues.
DeleteCOME ON, LIMP D*CK, PROVE YOU CAN HAVE A REAL DISCUSSION.
Having a conversation with you, is about like having a conversation with a table, I have no interest in doing so.
DeleteThat's because YOU CAN'T . . . your Inadequat Personality Disorder prevents you from doing so.
DeleteGood PM, folks!
ReplyDelete. . . Hard to say re going to war, but "elective wars," such as the two in which we have been embroiled since 2002, are the wrong way to go. However, if the Iranians attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, I'm fine with obliterating the ayatollahs'military . . . And the ayatollahs. We still haven't properly paid them for their kidnapping our citizens in 1979.
I agree Stab, re elective wars. The one we were involved in is one that a reactive president had no clear mission for.
DeleteSo many embassies and overseas American government personnel have been blown up since 1979, but how do we "properly" have the debt paid?
We have done a pretty good job of tracking and killing many of the murderers who bomb and assassinate, so I'd say we have something of a handle on that. Check with the shade of the late Bin Ladin. As for the government-sanctioned kidnapping and brutalization of our citizens in Iran, we remain indebted, so to speak.
DeleteHow should we "properly" pay back, though? What ever the pay back is, would it/could it lead to a war and if so would it be an "elective" war?
DeleteI have no love for the Islamic Republic. Heck, if it were up to me, the Pahlavis would be restored. But, war with Iran would be incredibly complicated, a humanitarian disaster, and would send the price of oil through the roof. All to fight with a country that hasn't launched an aggressive war in 1000 years, and where the people are largely pro-American. War would solidify the legitimacy of the IR and destroy what goodwill we have there.
DeleteJust my 2 cents.
And the Israelis have a quite robust nuclear deterrent themselves, FWIW.
DeleteBefore you start advocating restoration of the Pahlavis, maybe you ought to Google "SAVAK", a most disgusting episode in US foreign relations.
DeleteFull payment may never be rendered unless the ayatollahs visit their nukes on Israel or a track us directly in some way. I definitely oppose getting into a war with the Iranians over their nuclear activities.
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments are the same as yours re attacks on us, namely the U.S. embassies, but isn't payback, now, too little too late?
DeleteYes, a bit late. Also, I forgot that the USS Vincennes later shot down an Iranian airliner, so we probably can close that book, at least till they do something else.
ReplyDeleteArthur, agree re war w/Iran and point taken re Israel's deterrent.
ReplyDeleteNo worries. This youtube video was floating around Facebook a while ago...it's a 13 year-old Iranian girl singing Adele. She's quite good...it puts a human face on the situation.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhFjCEcLaHA
I hardly find the accidental shooting down of a civilian airliner as a fitting response to the Iranian hostage incident.
Delete290 innocent civilians (Iranian 254, United Arab Emirates 13, Indian 10, Pakistani 6, Yugoslavian 6, Italian 1) died because of a series of tragic mistakes made by everyone from the Vincennes CO down to his radar operators.
Of course, the biggest mistake was that the US government had the Vincennes, designed to do battle with modern naval forces at long range, jammed into the confined Arabian Gulf dealing with situations that she was not equipped to handle in the first place.
First use of nuclear weapons by any nation anywhere is not acceptable, because it creates a scenario for worldwide nuclear war.
ReplyDeleteSince the scenario of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel anytime soon is mere fantasy, we need to look at a far more probable scenario...an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran.
In such circumstances, there would be enormous pressure on Pakistan to reply in kind. That would lead to enormous pressure on the US to also reply in kind. And that would bring the Russians into play.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, this juvenile tit-for-tat thinking can only lead to total destruction. But it is a highly likely scenario. Recent studies and surveys of nuclear experts worldwide indicates a 50-50 chance of a nuclear war within the next 50 years unless world leaders get serious about reducing the danger.
As to the overall conflict with Iran, too many Americans are unable to separate the Iranian government from the Iranian people.
ReplyDeleteIf you "nuke" Iran, the government will survive. It is the people who will suffer and die.
And believe it or not, the average Iranian is little different from you and I. Having traveled in many second and third world countries, I can say that that is true for most of the world.
An Iranian friend tells me wonderful stories about the state of affairs there. Here's one.
In Iran, all women are required to wear the full Islamist bullshit garb, which is described in their law in detail...everything black. But some bright teenagers in Teheran noticed that the gov had failed to mention shoes.
So they started wearing colored tennis shoes to school...pink, blue, orange, green...whatever. Of course, that was immediately spotted and the law was corrected.
But the girls saw that as a minor setback, because the new regulations failed to mention shoelaces. So they started wearing colored shoelaces on their black shoes...pink, blue, orange, green, etc.
Of course, that was also soon corrected in the regs, but some schools, out of weariness with all those strict rules, and especially since the girls involved are the top of the line students, have elected to ignore the corrections, so some teenaged girls are still wearing colored shoelaces.
For lucky, privileged Americans, that seems inconsequential. But upon such inconsequential things are built the next revolution.