Voting rights and age
Most everyone I have spoken with was quite surprised to discover that 17-year-olds can vote in primaries if they will be turning 18 before the general election. I can only assume it is to ensure that they are not disenfranchised based upon age.
This leads to the question: "When would/should a person who is not yet at the age of majority be permitted to vote based upon the fear of being disenfranchised?" What about the 15-year-olds voting for a person who is running for public office for a four-year or longer term? Won't they be disenfranchised since they will be 18 before that elected official's term expires? What about the 8-year-old who faces the possibility of an elected official still being in the same elected office when he turns 18 (the elected official's tenure will affect the child's life)?
Solution: The legislature can pass a law permitting "in utero voting." Mom can vote twice (if twins, then three times).
Problem: What about the father? He contributed to the unborn being disenfranchised prior to birth. Now that I think of it, there are a lot of other problems that could develop from "in utero voting" — of course, many of the same problems result from any voting rights prior to turning 18 (or any other established age requirement).
Better solution: Since 18 is the age of majority and the age upon which most other rights associated with adulthood officially begin, then you must be 18 to vote .
DAVID BOTCHIN
Winston-Salem
Lenox is The Man
In my humble opinion, Lenox Rawlings is the best journalist you have on staff.
His May 9 article concerning a new inductee into the N.C. Sports Hall of Fame, Wilt Browning ("Browning mastered telling sports tales"), caused me to think back to good times sitting around our kitchen table many, many years ago listening to a baseball announcer by the name of Gus Chamberlain (another Hall of Famer) broadcast the Chattanooga Lookouts games. It is good to think back to earlier, simpler times in order to glean some wisdom from the past.
Thanks, Lenox!
ED SHUGART
Winston-Salem
Franklin Graham and grieving
The Rev. Franklin Graham said God is grieved that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage ("Evangelist slams Obama for stance," May 11). I have just spoken with God, and she is grieved that Franklin Graham has become such a bigot. His arrogance is unbecoming and offensive.
MICHAEL NEWMAN
Winston-Salem
A government diet
With reference to the May 11 letter "Doing something about the deficit," let me see if I can put this in terms that all readers will understand: Additional taxation isn't the answer.
It was just recently announced that something like 40 percent of all Americans are overweight. Governments at all levels (federal, state and local) are also overweight. You don't give a fat person more to eat — you give him less. Put government on a diet and the burden will go down. Give government more money and it'll just figure out a way to "eat" it.
If allowed to get any "fatter," the government will get sick and die. Greece and other European countries are deathly ill right now from "overeating." Our people and our governments have a chance to get well.
Take your choice: Get lean and live or get fat and die.
STANLEY G. SIMM
Winston-Salem
Cake out in the rain
I might have believed that the proponents of Amendment One were kind, if misguided, individuals who were doing their best to stand for what they think is right, if I hadn't seen the photo from their victory celebration.
They served wedding cake.
Two questions, both serious:
If marriage is such a sacred institution that it should be celebrated only between one man and one woman, isn't it a bit frivolous to use that cake as a symbol of victory?
And:
Really? This is how they celebrate denying marriage to a group of people, by rubbing their faces in it with a wedding cake that only they are allowed to enjoy?
That says it all to me.
PHIL RONALD TURNER
Winston-Salem
Equality
The issue isn't and shouldn't be about marriage equality. It is about equality whether you want to marry or not. It is about American citizens being granted their civil rights.
Amendment One takes away citizens' civil rights. Why does it not then take away their taxes? If people are not granted their civil rights then they should not have to pay taxes. Hell, look at Mitt Romney. He, as a citizen, pays few taxes, but those who are considered less than human pay more taxes than millionaires. Sickening.
TRACEY MESZAROS
King
"Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush?" the teacher said toward the end of the argument, telling the student, "you are not supposed to slander the president."
ReplyDeleteThe student told the teacher that one can't be arrested "unless you threaten the president."
- reported by FoxNews
where else, you wouldn't see this outrageous conduct by a liberal teacher by CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS
____________
Just as all the liberal, radical activists continue their propaganda in the LTEs, it's obvious that liberal teachers are continuing their quest to spread liberal, political propaganda in our country's public school classrooms.
This occurred in North Carolina too.
DeleteHere's the audio of the exchange. It appears the from the sound of the teacher's voice, she may be African American. Skip to around the 4:00 minute mark.
DeleteIt's obvious why the camera is pointed somewhere else so that the teacher can't be seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjpWaESn_9g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off'
ReplyDeleteCNN headline
_____________
Think CNN is the most trusted name in news? Think again.
Good afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: I didn't know 17 y.o. could vote either in the primaries. I don't have any problem with a 17 y.o. voting in the primary if that person turns 18 prior to the general election. The scenarios proffered by Mr. Botchin are hyperbolic nonsense much like those saying allowing same sex marriage will lead to human - nonhuman marriages.
LTE 2: Of course, having a great subject for the article such as Wilt Browning makes it much easier to have a great article. It was a great article detailing the human side of a sports icon dealing with a tragedy. It may have been a simple time for whites, but the article dealt with a much darker and troubling time for minorities, even if for a minority who was one of the greatest baseball players ever.
LTE 3: I'll agree that Franklin Graham is not God's singular spokesperson. From my pov, whether or not someone is gay isn't the issue. It's how you treat that person that counts.
LTE 4: (Sigh...) another false analogy. Diets and economics are two totally separate subjects that don't correspond in any way, shape or fashion. The problem is unemployment, not the debt. The budget deficits are a consequence of too many unemployed workers who have to take money out instead of paying into. The govt is part of the GDP, so reduced govt spending means a smaller GDP. You do NOT try to shrink the GDP when you are experiencing a weak recovery. See Europe.
LTE 5, 6: There were no winners; only losers. Those who supposedly "won" gained nothing. This was a classic case of the tyranny of the majority. Those who were suppose to represent all citizens, gay and straight failed the gay citizens.
Everybody knows that if you grow a country's GDP through governmental programs, it's not a 'hard' GDP growth. Didn't you learn that in Econ 101?
DeleteAs always, whenever anyone, especially a know nothing, says "everybody knows", be on guard, because whatever everybody knows is almost certain to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteA nation's government expenditures are a part of and inseparable from the nation's GDP. As dotnet points out, shrinking government spending too fast during a weak recovery is one of the most dangerous things that you could do.
As always, there is a lot of bushwa around at the moment about government spending as a percentage of GDP, with accompanying cries of panic that ours is too high and disaster is at hand.
There is no such thing as too high...such matters depend upon many factors. Our current percentage is hovering between 25 and 30%, which brings out the Chicken Little crowd. Here are a few others: Norway 56%, Sweden 58%, France 62%. All three of those nations' economies are in far better shape than ours.
People who know nothing about anything really ought to just shut up.
Yeah, I agree. I don't know why you keep running your mouth.
DeleteLooks like Stab was right, again. Information is coming in that the SEIU is behind the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement. These protesters are intent on causing trouble. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteMore solar wind from the vast universe of ignorance known as "Buckyworld".
DeletePlease cite just one legitimate news source, as opposed to your beloved crackpot websites.
Even the professional liars at Fox are not buying this one:
Think Again, Dumbo
Simple minded is as simple minded does.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/08/secretive-seiu-network-partners-with-occupy-movement-raises-hell/
Deletehttp://video.foxnews.com/v/1649143838001/anarchy-in-chicago/?playlist_id=87485
DeleteHow about two sources.
I said legitimate news sources.
DeleteThey are more 'legitimate' than any of the wacky news sources you cite. Now, stick 'em in your liberal pipe and smoke 'em! Switch over to today's discussion. I've got some more stuff that'll drive you even more nuts than you already are.
DeleteLeft over from yesterday:
ReplyDeleteThe NLRB was created by Congress in 1935 to adjudicate disputes between business and labor.
It has never really served that purpose and since the 1950s it has been packed with pro-business members, becoming just another part of the war on unions.
In 2007, the board had its usual makeup…3 management attorneys appointed by W Bush and 2 Clinton appointees, so just like the current Supreme Court, most decisions were by a one vote margin, reflecting the ideology of its members.
In January, 2008, three of the members' 5 year terms expired, leaving one Bush appointee, Peter Schaumber and one Clinton appointee, Wilma Liebman. W reappointed management attorney Robert Battista and Clinton appointee Dennis Walsh, and added yet another management attorney, Gerald Morales, thus keeping the pro-business balance.
But the Senate refused to confirm any of the 3. So the board attempted to operate with only 2 members for the next couple of years until court rulings made it clear that no business could be conducted without a quorum of 3.
By then, Barack Obama had succeeded W. He made new appointments which would have changed the traditional balance to pro-labor for the first time in 60 years. But despite the fact that the Senate had come under Democratic control, the GOP was able to use the filibuster to delay Obama's appointments indefinitely.
At that point, Obama used a fairly rare procedure, making "recess appointments" to put his 3 nominees on the board. Of course, the Rush/Beck/Fox world exploded in outrage. "Unconstitutional!" they screamed. "Subversion of the American way of life!"
Funny how we couldn't hear those same voices between 2000 and 2008 when W used the same exact procedure to fill posts with his "conservative" appointees about 140 times.
One of Obama's appointees, Craig Becker, has since been hounded off the board by an unprecedented smear campaign reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy years.
Before people go popping off on business-labor relations, they should learn something about the 130+ years battle between business and labor in the US. They should also read the testimony regarding the NLRB taken by the US Senate in 2008. And before judging Craig Becker, maybe they ought to read the transcripts of his Senate "confirmation" hearings.
When your only info comes from biased sources, you are just as much in the dark as those, like the above commenter on this forum, who get no info from anywhere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete