Letters

Letters 08-25-14

Save America

I read your paper because it’s free and I enjoy the ads. But I struggle through the left wing tripe that fills every page, from political cartoons to the vitriolic pen of Mr. Tuttle. What a shame this beautiful area of the state has such an abundance of Socialist/democrats. Or perhaps the silent majority chooses to stay silent...

Doom, Yet a Cup Half Full

In the news we are told of the civil unrest at Ferguson, Mo; ISIS war radicals in Iraq and Syria; the great corporate tax heist at home. You name it. Trouble, trouble, everywhere. It seems to me the U.S. Congress is partially to blame...

Uncomfortable Questions

defending the positions of the Israelis vs Hamas are far too narrow. Even Mr. Tuttle seems to have failed in looking deeply into the divide. American media is not biased against Israel, nor or are they pro Palestine or Hamas...

The Evolution of Man Revisited

As the expectations of manhood evolve, so too do the rules of love. In Mr. Holmes’s statement [from “Our Therapist Will See Us Now” in last week’s issue] he narrows the key to a successful relationship to the basic need to have your wants and needs understood, and it is on this point I expand...

Home · Articles · News · Letters · Letters
. . . .

Letters

- July 5th, 2010
Fighting to spend
Why do we do it over and over again?
Afghanistan and Vietnam can never really be compared. Each long-term
military action was different and presented different problems. The
similarity between these two very different actions lies in the fact
that they are and were being fought not to win but to spend.
If the civilian leadership in Washington turned the American military
loose to go through a country and kick ass until those who were
considered the enemy were devastated and defeated, the action would
not last very long. The problems would lie in the civilian collateral
damage and death toll. We then must try to rebuild the civilization we
just defeated.
As a civilization we cannot by force install our moral value or
economic system around the world. If this statement is true, and
history has proven that it does not work, why do we try it over and
over again? Is it because there is profit to be made, and it will keep
our populace fixated on something other than real problems that exist
today in this country?
Small unit tactics coupled with effective limited air strikes have
been shown to be effective military actions in today’s world. If we
spend the effort and money on reliable intelligence and then without
hesitation act on that intelligence in a totally devastating manner,
soon the need for that kind of reaction would wind down.
The many men and women who will return home forever changed physically
and emotionally by the actions that we are now engaged in need to
stop. These brave young people could be better used at home, here in
this country, helping those in their own towns rebuild this country
and its infrastructure rather then destroying then trying to rebuild
an infrastructure in a world that we can never really change.

Michael H. MacCready • Manton

Another disaster...
Another great and so timely Anne Stanton article, “Blowin’ in the
Wind” 6/28) had the beginnings of a good look at the environmentally
devastating fracting (also known as “fracking”) issues in Michigan’s
rush for natural gas development.
In a separate but eerily similar vein, we need more awareness of the
horrific Kennecott Mine in Big Bay, a small community in Marquette
County.
The sulfide mine proposed by the Kennecott Minerals Company raises
concerns that have yet to be adequately addressed, the use of fracting
practices is just one of those many concerns. Contrary to Mr. Lagina’s
quote:
“...drillers are required to protect the drinking water in Michigan.
The state has incredibly high standards and tough sanctions.” Both
Bark Stupak and columnist Phil Powers say not so in Michigan’s mining
laws. The mine will be dug directly under the headwaters of the Salmon
Trout River, right off Lake Superior, and is very controversial.
Please read and encourage more excellent writers and their
publications to give us more in depth information on the pros and cons
of this particular proposal and encourage more dialog on many
alternative energy resources to help us all make sound decisions for
our future.

Suz McLaughlin • Frankfort

(Anne Stanton writes about the issue of natural gas fracking in this issue.)
Offensive title
Regarding the June 21 issue of the Express, what are/were/weren’t
you/somebody thinking? I am referring to the ad on page 27 for the
Grand Traverse Commons.
There are a great number of families who had relatives in the former
State Hospital/insane asylum (as it was commonly referred to) who will
always carry extremely sad, frightening, bitter, etc. feelings about
what their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, etc. underwent as
patients there.
While it was “as good as it could be” given the state of
science/medicine in those days, the “treatments” those persons endured
were in many cases what we now consider almost barbaric. In addition,
what those family members were forced to see, hear, experience when
visiting relatives there will live just beneath the surface of memory,
probably for as long as those “visitors” live.
My father was a patient there from 1953 through the mid 1960s, and (as
a young child) my mom and I would visit him as often as we could. To
this day, the memories of what we saw and heard are haunting at best.
I know of countless others who share the same type memories and who
struggle always to keep them beneath the surface of daily thought.
To use the heading “SEEK ASYLUM” for the Commons is as distasteful as
you can get. If it was done out of humor, it ain’t funny! This is
unacceptable for what is striving to be a renaissance use of those
grounds.
I would presume/hope whomever is responsible will not require further
explanation as to why this “title/heading” is so offensive/disgusting
to so many.

T.L. Watts • via email

Correction
Photos for last week’s article “Marti Johnson, funny lady” were
courtesy of John Robert Williams.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close