Letters

Letters 05-02-2016

Facts About Trails I would like to correct some misinformation provided in Kristi Kates’ article about the Shore-to-Shore Trail in your April 18 issue. The Shore-to-Shore Trail is not the longest continuous trail in the Lower Peninsula. That honor belongs to the North Country Trail (NCT), which stretches for over 400 miles in the Lower Peninsula. In fact, 100 miles of the NCT is within a 30-minute drive of Traverse City, and is maintained by the Grand Traverse Hiking Club...

North Korea Is Bluffing I eagerly read Jack Segal’s columns and attend his lectures whenever possible. However, I think his April 24th column falls into an all too common trap. He casually refers to a nuclear-armed North Korea when there is no proof whatever that North Korea has any such weapons. Sure, they have set off some underground explosions but so what? Tonga could do that. Every nuclear-armed country on Earth has carried out at least one aboveground test, just to prove they could do it if for no other reason. All we have is North Korea’s word for their supposed capabilities, which is no proof at all...

Double Dipping? In Greg Shy’s recent letter, he indicated that his Social Security benefit was being unfairly reduced simply due to the fact that he worked for the government. Somehow I think something is missing here. As I read it this law is only for those who worked for the government and are getting a pension from us generous taxpayers. Now Greg wants his pension and he also wants a full measure of Social Security benefits even though he did not pay into Social Security...

Critical Thinking Needed Our media gives ample coverage to some presidential candidates calling each other a liar and a sleaze bag. While entertaining to some, this certainly should lower one’s respect for either candidate. This race to the bottom comes as no surprise given their lack of respect for the rigors of critical thinking. The world’s esteemed scientists take great steps to preserve the integrity of their findings. Not only are their findings peer reviewed by fellow experts in their specialty, whenever possible the findings are cross-checked by independent studies...

Home · Articles · News · Random Thoughts · Supreme Women
. . . .

Supreme Women

George Foster - October 6th, 2005
First Lady Laura Bush was only partly right when she suggested the next Supreme Court justice should be a woman.
Come on, Mr. President. The U.S. has nine justices that serve on the highest court in the land. After Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, one woman remains. The fact that only two females have served in over two hundred years of Supreme Court rulings is shameful. Hundreds of male justices have been confirmed, but only two women?
The best solution is to appoint women for the next four openings on the bench. A five to four majority favoring female justices would help make up for past discrimination. The following are my choices for the next four Supreme Court vacancies.
Anita Hill. You may still remember Justice Clarence Thomas and Hill’s famous confrontation before the Senate committee that originally held hearings on his nomination. Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment in the work place while Thomas could remember none of it. Supporters of each accused the other of pathological lying. Who was telling the truth? Anita Hill’s confirmation would assure us of one honest African-American on the bench. Hill’s place on the court would also provide guarantees that minimal porn would be circulated among the justices in the future.
Ann Coulter. With a law degree from the University of Michigan and a resume of impressive legal credentials, Coulter became famous after writing four best-selling books that prove liberal Americans are traitors. Coulter has the necessary conservative agenda (and then some) to appease right-wing pundits but might need a little refresher course in history. I actually heard her refer to Alexander Hamilton as a past president – Alan Dershowitz gently corrected her during a TV debate.
Hillary Clinton. The Senator from New York would make a wonderful Supreme Court Justice. She is a brilliant attorney and has earned bi-partisan respect during her one term in office for hard work and dedication to the job. Clinton’s nomination to the court would eliminate accusations from the Democrats that the Bush administration is only interested in putting Nazi-types on the court. The most obvious reason for her selection, though, would be to eliminate Ms. Clinton from contention for the presidency. Many Republicans and Democrats would love to see her out of the picture in order to serve their own presidential aspirations.
Anna Nicole Smith. I’m not kidding. The former Playboy Playmate and topless dancer will soon be attending a U.S. Supreme Court hearing with her attorney Howard K. Stern (you couldn’t make this up). The highest court has agreed to hear Smith’s case relating to her inheritance of $474 million from her deceased ex-husband who was 73 years her senior. Smith’s experience in the court system and ability to attain a law degree overnight from any number of mail-order universities should make her an attractive candidate to liven up that stuffy bunch of eggheads.
By the time you read this, President Bush will hopefully have nominated a female to replace Justice O’Connor. It had better be a woman or he has some serious questions to answer from the chief justice of his private domain: Mrs. Bush.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close