Letters To The Editor
Cuccinelli's Views Are Archaic and Misplaced
Editor, Times-Dispatch: While Bob McDonnell's thesis has gotten plenty of news coverage, I'm surprised that almost nothing has been written about Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican nominee for attorney general. As a state senator, Cuccinelli declared, "you can't have safe homosexual sex," and he once called a George Mason sexual education event an example of "moral depravity." These archaic views have no place in a Virginia statewide office.
Fortunately, Steve Shannon, Cuccinelli's opponent, has the modern mindset needed to move Virginia forward. As a former prosecutor, Shannon will remain focused on public safety, not divisive social issues. The attorney general should be a law enforcement officer, not a social crusader, and Shannon understands that.
Joshua Crump.
Richmond.
Shields' Ambitions Aren't Competitive
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Tom Shields, the candidate running against Del. John O'Bannon, provides voters nothing more than a tangled lace of negative and contradictory messages. After reviewing the non-messages contained in his anti-O'Bannon mailers, attending debates, and following his newsletters, I conclude Shields' political ambitions are far more compelling than any argument as to why the constituents of the 73rd should be dissatisfied with O'Bannon.
Shields relocated voluntarily to Henrico as presumably there was employment here for him with income sufficient to purchase a home in a good and safe neighborhood. He sends his children to one of the finest public school systems in the commonwealth. He chose Henrico because it is a good place to live, work, learn, and play. While we have felt the consequences of the economic downturn, our community is in far better shape than many. Thankfully, we are represented well by O'Bannon and our local government.
O'Bannon, who is a member of our part-time legislature, returns to our community to live and work among his constituents. He is not personally exempt from his legislative actions.
I wonder if Shields moved to Henrico and immediately regretted the move to such an extent he felt he must run for public office to save us from a misery we had not recognized. If he believes the solution to our woes is a "new generation of leadership," is he implying that youth and effective constituent representation are mutually exclusive? Do those of us who have reached the 50-year mark have nothing to offer to the health and growth of our community?
Maybe one day Shields will hold elected office. If so, it will be based on the issues that affect us and represent our community values -- not fabrications created for his political opportunism.
Anne D. Kellum.
Henrico.
McDonnell Fought Women's Progress
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In his letter regarding sending Washington a message, Mike Panchura stated "we Virginians are not going to stand for fiscally irresponsible national leadership and the trashing of the U.S. Constitution and our freedoms," as he supports Bob McDonnell for governor.
But, should Virginians elect someone who as recently as 2001, according to The Washington Post, voted against a resolution in support of ending wage discrimination between men and women? As a Cosby High School senior who has been supported for the majority of my life by a hard-working mother, I don't want or need someone like this running the state.
I know McDonnell's master's thesis was written when he was a graduate student, but his view on anything -- let alone women -- should be pretty rigid at that point in his life. McDonnell described feminism as one of the real enemies of the traditional family -- and if that isn't trashing one's freedoms then I really don't know what is.
I know that he needs the women's vote in order to win the election, and the handful of ads spotlighting his Iraqi war veteran daughter have been great for diminishing his statements against women. But, if Virginians truly want to continue the progress forward that was demonstrated by both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, they need to vote for Creigh Deeds for governor of Virginia on Nov. 3.
Mike Deck.
Chesterfield.
What Does GOP Offer to Me?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I will not be voting Republican next week.
I'm not a corporation or a business owner. I'm not independently wealthy.
I'm female, and I'm not married to a wealthy man who's willing to take care of me.
I don't have kids, and I don't want kids. I also refuse to be celibate.
I'm not very religious.
Exactly what do the Republicans have to offer that would be good for people like me?
Alison Koerner.
Midlothian.
Narrow Ideology Disqualifies McDonnell
Editor, Times-Dispatch: During the debate with Creigh Deeds, Bob McDonnell said that Virginia should not participate in health reform if it includes the public option. His view is disturbing because the new health plan may have a provision that states could opt out of the "public option."
I have Medicare (my public option), and I like it very much, so I'm not writing for personal benefit, but for friends and loved ones. If McDonnell will restrict the health care choices of millions of Virginians because of his narrow ideology, he doesn't deserve to be governor.
William Cullison.
Richmond.
Reader Reactions
NMR, more point-by-point responses:
“But if you turn up pregnant, I don’t think I ought to have to pay for your abortions or support the results. If the rules say I must, I will comply, but I don’t think it’s fair.“
“Our” rules (most of which I don’t recall having any say in) also say that I must pay for things I disagree with, such as abstinence-only “education”, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and tax cuts for billionaires. I don’t think that’s fair.
Who in this world doesn’t have to help pay for something they disagree with? And why should you be exempt?
“....if you believe that birth control is 100% effective, or prevents sexually transmitted diseases, I believe you’re wrong, and the statistics are on my side.“
Maybe not 100% effective, but condoms are 98% effective against pregnancy when used consistently and correctly (Guttmacher Institute, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html.) I have seen figures of about 90% effectiveness against STDs, and the Centers for Disease Control give them a “highly effective” (http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html).
90 to 98% effective is a lot better than 0% - which is the effectiveness of using no protection at all. And, if my birth control failed, I became pregnant, and I was prevented from terminating the pregnancy, I could still put the child up for adoption.
“As for obeying rules; they’re not my rules, they’re our rules.“
See my first paragraph for my thoughts on “our” rules. A lot of the “rules” were set up long before I was born, by people who didn’t even know me. Forgive me for having some skepticism about rules made under these circumstances.
“If you want a single payer system, then vote for the politician who best appears to pursue that goal, but you ought to become informed about what you’ll be getting before you do so. There is no such thing as a free lunch – or health care, either. It’ll appear to be free alright, but what will you be getting, and who will be paying for it?“
You’re assuming that I think single payer universal health care would be free. I know it wouldn’t - not any more than our military is free, or our police and firefighters, our roads and bridges, or the aforementioned Centers for Disease Control.
The health care we have now is wonderful - IF you can afford it. If you have health insurance, you can only get the treatment that some beancounter is willing to pay for - regardless of what your doctor says you need. If you actually need some serious medical treatment, some insurance companies will drop you like a hot potato. You’re supposed to pay the premiums, but you’re not supposed to actually use the insurance!
If you have NO health insurance, your only recourse is an overcrowded ER. Might as well make your will, in that case.
“It’s all an assumption of individual responsibility, and of not depending on others to work so that you can have what you want.“
Ah, the conservative/liberatarian mantra - “individual responsibility” or “Why should I help anybody but myself?“ I do not believe that all the people whose life savings got wiped out last year by Wall Street should be held “responsible” for knowing every little detail about how the financial system works. You should not need a Ph.D. in finance in order to understand your retirement savings plan.
Until we come up with some way for people who do not happen to work in the financial industry to save for retirement in a way that they can easily understand, then these average folks need to be protected from those professionals in the financial sector who happen to be greedy and dishonest. It’s called “consumer protection.“
“As you see, there was nothing in my post for you be upset about - unless you make it so.“
More “individual responsibility”? If you stepped on my foot and broke the bones, there would be nothing for me to be upset about, unless I CHOSE to be upset?
Don’t give me that BS. The whole tone of your posts has been that of a condescending bully. I know when I’m being talked down to. To quote Judge Judy, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.“
I’m going out of town for a few days, so if you come back and say something else, don’t expect a reply for a while.
No, actually, I don’t always do as I please. We don’t live in this world alone; others feelings and well-being are of concern to all but the selfish.
You’re sure you know what I’m thinking? How can that be?
As I wrote, I have no objection to you bedding as many men, with as much vigor and variety in it as you like. It’s none of my business. But if you turn up pregnant, I don’t think I ought to have to pay for your abortions or support the results. If the rules say I must, I will comply, but I don’t think it’s fair.
OK, it’s silly of me, I didn’t mention birth control, but if you believe that birth control is 100% effective, or prevents sexually transmitted diseases, I believe you’re wrong, and the statistics are on my side.
I’m not angry at you; I don’t even know you. As for obeying rules; they’re not my rules, they’re our rules. I think you ought to be free to do as your like, as long as no one is injured by your actions, or you don’t pass the costs on to others. That would not be nice.
If you want a single payer system, then vote for the politician who best appears to pursue that goal, but you ought to become informed about what you’ll be getting before you do so. There is no such thing as a free lunch – or health care, either. It’ll appear to be free alright, but what will you be getting, and who will be paying for it?
I’m with you; I think you ought to save for retirement – there are no laws preventing you from doing so, nor are there laws mandating that you do. It’s all an assumption of individual responsibility, and of not depending on others to work so that you can have what you want.
Finally, I have no sex rules for other people. The world is full of variety and, apart from rules protecting children, I think people should be free to engage with other consenting adults so long as they mutually agree – no coercion. Again, it’s none of my business.
In fact, my only suggestion to you would be that you read and understand before you get angry. As you see, there was nothing in my post for you be upset about - unless you make it so.
NMR:
I love how you skipped right over my first objections to Republicans (which had to do with economic inequality) and went straight to poking your nose in my sex life. Stay classy!
Here’s a point by point response:
“...you prefer to do as you please.“ You say that like it’s a bad thing. Don’t YOU prefer to do as you please? Oh, no, I’m sure you go through life saying, “I’d rather be thwarted at every turn and never have things go my way.“
“You don’t want children, but you want recreational sex.“
Yes, and so do most people, if they’re honest enough to admit it. Even married couples who do want children want one or two - not another one every year. And most married couples have a lot more sex than is necessary to produce one or two children.
“If you become pregnant, whom do you want to pay for your recreational consequences? Would simply paying for your abortions satisfy you, or do you also expect your kind of politician to justify your inclinations by creating a right for you to have them?“
Silly NMR. It’s called “birth control.“ When you use it consistently and correctly, it PREVENTS abortion. If you do not want children, using birth control IS assuming one’s social
responsibilities.
I have the feeling that the real reason why people like you are angry at people like me is because we don’t want to obey your rules.
What would a politician promise to get my vote? Well, universal single-payer health care would be a good start. How about some method of saving for retirement that would not allow Wall Street to gamble with our hard-earned money? How about protecting consumers,
employees and shareholders from predatory corporations?
Guess you didn’t think of that. All you care about is making other people obey your sex rules, and imprisoning women with pregnancies and children. Nice try.
Well the World has not changed. In old Rome there emerged a super middle class dedicated to living high for the day as slaves from northern Europe made living cheap and games and bread were provided for the true middle class masses to keep them happy for a while.
But it crumpbled in the end and the homosexuals had a field day. Fornication and wine and bread and games were the pass times of that day while slave labor (eg immigrants) held the system up til it cracked.
We must be post industrial is a big issue is for the government seek to force approval for people the bible, all bibles, classify and sinners…let the sinners crow while the bridge to the future cracks and falls down…
Whine, whine on while we sink to the bottom again.
That Ken Cuccinelli views Gay people with such disdain is one thing. If he believes that Gay folks are committing an abominable sin and will face fiery judgment from their maker, well then that’s his right. But co-opting the law to force people to do his bidding is the real abomination.
That someone with as bigoted views as Cuccinelli is running for Attorney General as appalling.
Alison Koerner, you reject Republicans because they won’t do anything for you, specifically, and it seems that you prefer to do as you please. You don’t want children, but you want recreational sex. So far, I’m with you, you’re exercising your constitutional prerogatives. But, what about assuming your social responsibilities? If you become pregnant, whom do you want to pay for your recreational consequences? Would simply paying for your abortions satisfy you, or do you also expect your kind of politician to justify your inclinations by creating a right for you to have them? You tell us that you’re not a lot of things, but you don’t tell us what you expect a politician to do for you that you can’t or won’t do for yourself. What must a politician promise to do for you to make you vote for him or her?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement