For Sipprell
I have known David Sipprell for over 25 years and was pleased when, in 2002, he joined the Forsyth County District Attorney's Office as an assistant district attorney. In his previous position as U.S. Air Force assistant staff judge advocate, David demonstrated his commitment to his country and to the law. David has continued this dedication by serving the citizens of Forsyth County with integrity in the courtroom as a zealous prosecutor and advocate for victims of crime. David's sound legal judgment clearly reflects his knowledge of the law; his innate moral code demands that the law be applied fairly.
As former district attorney, I was proud to have a man of such competence and strength of character as part of my staff. The citizens of Forsyth County could not find a more trustworthy candidate, nor one more dedicated to upholding the law. I am confident that David Sipprell would serve honorably in the position of district court judge.
TOM KEITH
Winston-Salem
Overcoming prejudice
The writer of the letter "One man, one woman" (April 11) presents a very articulate and reasonable-sounding view of why marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman. It's probably the best defense of this view that I've read.
But does it make sense?
He says that "virtually every society has naturally defined marriage as being between one man and one woman." This is true. But virtually every society has also persecuted gay people, relegating them to closets or, at best, second-class citizenship. This is immoral and should be corrected.
In America, as in most other advanced societies, we've come a long way toward overcoming that prejudice. We should continue moving in the direction of understanding and freedom, rather than back in the direction of oppressive regimes, like many Middle East countries.
He also fears that "activist judges or politicians will impose their values on the citizens of North Carolina." But what he is advocating instead is that those of conservative bent impose their values on citizens who disagree with them. Is that any less onerous? Why not let American — and North Carolinian — citizens have the freedom to make up their own minds about their own lives? Freedom is an American value.
Right now there are people who love each other and want to spend their lives together in the same kind of domestic partnership that most people take for granted. It literally hurts no one to let them.
PHIL RONALD TURNER
Winston-Salem
Sum It Up
Do you plan to participate in Early Voting, which starts Thursday?
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.
An impartial court?
I think most Americans would agree that there are myriad problems with health care and that something should be done to get control of the costs and also provide some help to families in need. The disagreement comes over how to make that happen. The Democrats passed Obamacare to try to solve the problem. Conservatives believe it overreaches and is unconstitutional.
Now it is before the Supreme Court, and pundits are arguing which way Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts will go. It is assumed that the other seven had their views already cast even before the hearings.
And therein lies the problem. The justices are supposed to be apolitical, interpreting the Constitution without prejudice. But no one even questions the liberals' position. It is just assumed they are right to rule in favor and that the conservative justices are the activists who need to be persuaded.
Wouldn't it be great if some of them arrived at the opposite conclusion than is assumed? What a shock if Justice Stephen Breyer voted against it and Justice Antonin Scalia approved it. There should be outrage that it is considered OK for them to have their positions already set.
Where is the impartiality that is supposed to flow from the Supreme Court? Where is the staunch defense of our Constitution that these people were appointed to pursue? It all went the same way bipartisanship went in the Congress and the executive branch. How sad.
DAVID F. MOSER
If I plan to vote early on Thursday, will I be charged with voter fraud?
ReplyDeleteI will vote on election day. My daughter sent in her request for an absentee ballot when she was home last weekend.(She's also responsible for sending me the link I shared on the forum last week) I haven't heard if she has received her ballot yet. My son registered to vote by filling out the form and sending it in. He has not received notice from board of elections that he is register yet. We can walk to our polling site so hopefully all will be allowed to participate without implications of fraud. Even though our household should double the votes against Amendment One than it would have if the vote had been held in 2006, it is still sad that this amendment is projected to pass in our state.
DeleteGood PM, folks!
DeleteI intend to vote early as well, against the amendment.
I'll be voting for Amendment One. There are over five hundred trillion planets in just one segment of our Universe, and liberal Democrats think they know everything.
DeletePooey!
Hello Bucky.
DeleteI'm not sure what the number of planets in a considerable volume of the Universe has to do with what liberals, conservatives, or centrists know, but that brought up an interesting line of thought for me, the 5 X 10^14 planets that you mentioned in our segment of the Universe. That's a pretty big segment.
Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is said to contain between 10^11 stars and 2 x 10^11 stars. Whether all stars have planets is unknown, but it seems fairly likely. Many stars are actually star systems, composed of two or more stars. The closest "star" to us is Alpha Centauri, which is actually a system of 3 stars, appx 4.3 light-years (about 25 trillion miles) away. Anyway, that makes it difficult to guess the number of planets in the Milky Way, but we'll assume the lower estimate of 100 billion stars, then assume the approximate number of planets in our Solar System, which we'll call 10 for ease of multiplication. That gives us an even trillion planets in our galaxy, the vast majority of which will be unsuited for life as we know it, meaning life that requires liquid water to exist.
Galaxies aren't very close to each other in general, so a volume enclosing galaxies averaging to 500 Milky Ways is going to be millions of light years in diameter, a pretty big sector. Now, if you are talking about what is called the Visible Universe, that is a diameter of appx 90 billion light years (and expanding at about a billion miles an hour (yes faster than light, but we're talking about space expanding, not material objects moving).
In that 90 billion light year diameter are appx 100 billion galaxies, with 1 trillion planets each by our guess. You do the math on that. As for what's past the Visible Universe, according to physicist Brian Greene, the visible universe is to the Universe as a whole at least as small as a sand grain to the planet Earth. Figure the sand grain at .001 inch, and the Earth at 8000 miles, and do the math on that. And that is at minimum, could be much bigger.
What is the point here? Nothing really. Just having fun.
Fair Share?
ReplyDeletePresident Obama is only paying 20% in federal taxes this year, yet he wants people to pay their 'fair' share. What's truly pathetic about Obama is that he knows he can just write a check for more money to the U.S. Government's General Fund if he wanted to pay his 'fair' share. Did he do that? Noooooooooooooooo!
Do as I say, not as I do. Right, Obama?
I have heard the Fair Share described variously as being between 17 and 23% of income. In this instance President Obama appears to be a centrist. Perhaps there is hope. And change.
DeleteLTE #2 - For at least the second time in the past few days we have:
ReplyDelete'He says that "virtually every society has naturally defined marriage as being between one man and one woman." This is true.'
No it isn't. How do I know? The bible tells me so...along with Building the Kingdom: A History of Mormons in America by Claudia and Richard Bushman.
Since polygamy was not only allowed, but encouraged in the Old Testament, it is difficult to understand how it became forbidden, since Jesus never mentions polygamy in the New Testament and it is known that more than few early Christians practiced polygamy.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, polygamy became, illegally according to the Constitution, a political matter.
The Territory of Utah, created, at the request of Mormon leaders in 1850, originally incorporated all of what is now Utah and Nevada plus part of western Colorado.
In 1858, the Comstock Lode of silver was discovered in the western portion of Utah. That attracted a majority of non-Mormons to the area, so in 1861 the Territory of Nevada was established. In 1859 gold was discovered around Breckenridge, which, similarly, led to the establishment of the Colorado Territory in 1861. Nevada became a state in 1864, Colorado in 1876. Despite considerable lobbying for statehood, Utah remained a territory for over 40 years. The main reason for the delay was the matter of polygamy.
The US government continued to pretty much ignore Mormon polygamy until 1869, when the golden spike was driven at Promontory in Utah, thus completing the transcontinental railroad. The Mormons knew that this spelled trouble for them, so boycotted the ceremony.
Sure enough, in the 1870s, the feds began a relentless attack on polygamy…revoking voting rights, seizing church property and imprisoning over a thousand Mormon men. This placed the Mormons in an untenable position. How did they get out?
In 1890, a Mormon "prophet" received a "revelation" from God telling him that polygamy was to stop. Utah was admitted to the Union a few years later.
I have no real opinion on polygamy. If men and women want to form a society including polygamy, that is their business, not mine.
I do have a problem with the government interfering with anyone's beliefs about marriage, or any other "social issue".
Cuz, I agree, but I assume that you would limit polygamy and polyandry to consenting adults, not allowing minors to be exploited as seems to be the case with some scumbags who practice polygamy.
DeleteOf course, we are talking adults only. I know a number of people who are in polygamous relationships, less the official state certificate, ranging from 2 to 5 "wives". In a couple of cases, these relationships date back to the 1960s. Most seem to be happy with the arrangement.
DeleteI also know a woman who lived for over 30 years, from birth to about 32, in a hareem in Saudi Arabia. She is an accomplished botanist whose education began in the hareem. She has no desire to return to that life, but every year she returns to Saudi to visit her sisters, friends and many many cousins.
I have learned a great deal from her. Life in the hareem is nothing like what we in the west think it is.
If you want to get into exploitation of minors, I had several students in my teaching years from India and other places in Asia, including Japan, where as many as 30% of marriages fit the description, who had been or still were involved in arranged marriages.
They told me of a wide range of experiences, from excellent to awful. The divorce rate in both countries is a tiny percentage of that of the US, which leads the world.
That probably has something to do with the local culture, in which divorce might be seen as as scandalous as it once was in the US. But no matter what the culture, there are "arrangements" to get around that, just as there are here.
I do not understand polygamy. How do the husbands stand all the talking?
DeleteWell, according to my friend who grew up in the hareem, that is because the husbands hear very little of it. It goes on out of sight and out of hearing among the women in the hidden rooms of the hareem. The only hint that the husband might get would be walking in on an occasional giggle, which would almost certainly be at his expense.
DeleteThe husbands have this ridiculous idea that they rule the roost, but the truth is that the household is controlled by the women, who usually find their husbands to be a bit naive. The husbands could never compete in the social and political intrigues that consume the hareem.
I'm in favor of one man, one woman simply because it evens the odds a bit.
But just a bit ;)
DeleteGood night again.
Flashing back to last night's discussion, wherein my noble family member OT implied that I am a single issue voter. Perhaps. When it comes to Federal elections, yes, but with ambivalence. I describe myself as a centrist, but that is based on the fact that my positions go right and left, so I average being in the center. This is sort of like the guy who has one hand in bitter cold liquid and the other in scalding hot water: on average he's comfortable.
ReplyDeleteSo, either side of the spectrum has pros and cons. We are all familiar with my position on union privileges, shared by most R's. Other the other hand, I understand affirmative action, championed by the D's. Conversely, I think poorly of hustlers like Rev's JJ and Al, who are part of the Dem establishment.
I also oppose efforts to have government establish religion, as in County Commission prayers, supported by R's (oh, how it hurts to be aligned with Walter Marshall). I'm fine with Stand Your Ground, abhored by Dems (Zimmerman was not standing his ground), who also favor gun stricter gun control, which I oppose. Strong national defense, frequently diluted by Dems, I favor.
Global warming is a fact, something that R's refuse to acknowledge. But Dems want cap-and-trade, which appears to have ulterior motives, thus I oppose (the market place will help re AGW: high gas prices are going to be a fact from now on).
We need to reduce/eliminate the deficit, something R's belatedly realize, but not at the expense of cutting spending too abruptly and shocking the economy, or cutting muscle along with fat, which R's don't seem to understand. Raising taxes on them with near 7-figure incomes seems reasonable to me, though. And get ready, the Bush cuts expire at the end of this year, anyway.
So, there you are. Exactly how does the wishy-washy Unaffiliated centrist vote. I will not vote for Obama, as he is owned by my pet bete noir. After that, I am open to suggestions, with reasons for so voting.
Stab, you've got me laughing on the Walter Marshall business. I've known him for most of my adult life...believe it or not he is a kind, decent and generous man, as was Jesse Helms, but like Jesse and our own right wing prima donna, Gloria Whisenhunt, he knows which side his bread is buttered on. So don't expect him, or Gloria, to change anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteIt is a shame that that is so, but it is realpolitik. Each found their niche for perpetual reelection.
As to your catalog of political positions, you've got me laughing again. You may see yourself as a centrist, as I do, but my right wing friends would consider you a dangerous liberal. Not yet a flaming liberal, but walking close to the line.
That is because of their litmus test of insane social issues...if you don't line up on abortion, immigration, prayer, sexual orientation, right to kill in a state of panic, etc, you are the anti-christ personified.
The scary part is that all of this nonsense comes from a tiny minority of loonies who spend all of their time and billions of untaxed church funds to promote their crazy agenda.
As WW has relentlessly stated, wouldn't it be nice if we could get down to brass tacks and start talking about the economy.
I will note in return that a lot of nonsense comes from a miniscule number of TB's who have access to a lot of other people's money ostensibily spent to pay to improve their working conditions. But, enough of that.
ReplyDeleteI forgot abortion. It's distasteful, but I believe that woman has the right to choose that option. I also believe that we have an obligation to protect and nuture children whose mothers choose to have them. This includes compelling errant dads and other sperm donors to be prime players in that support.
Finally (for tonight, anyway), I believe that no one in this country should go hungry or suffer from lack of basic shelter, as in Samaritan Ministry. I guess the right will now thoroughly disclaim me, while the left will recoil at my anti-union positions, et al. But, I'll sleep just fine. Good night all, from left to right.
Re errant dads, I recently had a personal peek into that world.
ReplyDeleteA long time acquaintance of mine and prominent citizen of our community had fallen far in arrears on his child support payments. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars. He was sort of hiding out, so living in a suburban condo rather than his usual Buena Vista dwelling.
One night came a knock at the door. "Police, open up!"
He tried to explain that he was important, not some common cur, but he was living in the wrong place and talking to the wrong cop. He got handcuffed and taken downtown.
Normally his appearance before the magistrate would have corrected matters and he would have been released forthwith as an important person, but he got the wrong magistrate, a friend of mine who knows nothing about who is important and who is not and could not care less in any case.
He was offered the standard bond, but did not have it. And his phone call failed to raise the money.
So he was admitted to our luxury high rise detention center
where he was stripped naked and examined for all kinds of bad things, then put into solitary confinement. How humiliating, and welcome to the real world.
Of course, the next morning his phone call brought an important lawyer from an important law firm who sprung him. As you can imagine, he has threatened to sue everybody involved in his incarceration.
Today he is playing golf twice a week at the country club with his friends who pretend not to know about his hour of humiliation. No word on whether he has caught up on his child support payments. Somehow I doubt that he has.