If readers did not find these pages annoying enough already, on Jan. 9 they were subjected to yet another anti-law-enforcement/pro-criminal rant from Jim Kenyon (“Distasteful Publicity”).
What type of society does this left-wing columnist really want anyway? One where there is no law enforcement at all? Would that please him? Or maybe just a world where police exist but never make an arrest?
I certainly wish him no bad luck in life, but I believe that if he ever becomes a crime victim himself, he would suddenly be clamoring for a quick and through police investigation and arrest of the perpetrator.
Philip Howland
Springfield, Vt.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi missed a golden opportunity by responding to President Donald Trump’s question about discussing a border wall with a curt “No.”
A more effective approach would have for Pelosi to cite the fact that we are facing two critical issues: border security and a government shutdown. Border security is a long-term problem that will require years to solve, especially if a wall is part of the solution. The issue of the government shutdown can be solved in one day.
If Pelosi had agreed to hold hearings on the subject of border security (including a wall) the president probably would have agreed, however reluctantly. Holding open hearings on the issue would have created the opportunity for experts to testify — experts such as Ed Zarenski (“Estimate: Wall May Take 10 Years,” Jan. 10) who has spent his career determining prices for large construction projects. Such testimony, in addition to that of other knowledgeable persons in the field, would have exposed the true cost and effectiveness of a border wall.
Open hearings would also have shone a light on the erroneous statements in the president’s national speech regarding “the criminals” who are streaming into the country.
Politicians are accustomed to not giving direct answers to questions. It was inexcusable for Pelosi to stray from her habitual type of response. By doing so, she allowed a great opportunity to slip away.
George Sutherland
Grantham
We need a reset in presidential leadership. There are too many important issues facing us — the government shutdown, immigration, health care, education, infrastructure, cyberwarfare, international relations and more — that need serious attention. Donald Trump is not only a con man and potentially a criminal, he has proven himself to be totally inept as president and leader.
Sen. Mitch McConnell needs to allow the Senate to vote on the House bill to re-open the government and debate border security separately. And Congress — Republicans, are you listening? Have you been watching this? — needs to invoke the 25th Amendment and rid the United States of this embarrassing, clown-like, not ready-for-prime-time president so we can move on and focus on the important issues facing the country.
Alison Roth
Perkinsville
I would like to apologize for being misleading in my last Forum letter (“Now No Religion is Welcome,” Dec. 28). Sarah Crysl Akhtar is quite right that my phrasing made it sound as if I saw no difference between religious displays on private property and public (“A Genius Often Dishonored,” Jan. 9).
I meant to use “public” as it refers to privately held workplaces, stores, malls or restaurants, complaints against which I hear more and more in these divisive times in relation to clothing, music, artwork or even the “subtle coercion” of architecture (concerning a mall that was once said to look too “Moorish”, i.e. Islamic).
A Nativity scene is definitely related to only one of this country’s many religions, and I agree with Akhtar that civic leaders need to honor the ideals of our founders and prohibit such displays on civic property. Perhaps they need to be reminded. Just, please, let’s not start trampling the Constitution and each other in our zeal to uphold its details.
All religions — not just those with “churches” — have histories involving slaughter and hatred, which is all the more reason that insisting on being offended, or suing any civic entity that for a short time seems to favor one over another, is counterproductive. Such reactions almost always engender retaliatory threats and ugly behavior, and the question in my letter was, where does it end? With more “blood of innocents”? Or will threats and Facebook-shaming be enough?
Eugenia Parrish
Hartland