Reader letters, Feb. 7

Feb 06, 2014

There are options to the Super Bowl

To the editor:

The Super Bowl used to be just another football game — a big, important end-of-the- season game that lasted several hours.

Now it’s a showy spectacular that lasts for days, rivaling and sometimes surpassing all that Hollywood and Broadway offer.

Players and coaches become celebrities doted on by the, hype for The Game begins weeks beforehand and companies compete for commercial air time as ferociously as players compete on the field.

Enough money is spent on Super Bowl weekend to pay off the national debt.

People have Super Bowl parties, ads and halftime shows during the game become as popular and entertaining as the action on the field.

Even God has had to take time out for the game, as churches either cancel Sunday evening activities, thereby admitting their defeat by the gridiron competition, or collaborating by planning their own Super Bowl parties.

Even when the game is over, it isn’t over. For days, analysts will tediously re-play the game.

Here’s an over-looked fact: not everybody wants to watch The Game. A lot of us don’t even like football.

We become marginalized during Super Bowl season. We can’t go anywhere where it isn’t: restaurants, hotel lobbies, retail stores. There seems to be no escape. What are we to do?

I have found a few options. There are a few TV stations that don’t “do” the Super Bowl, and there are movie theaters to which to escape.

Go to the gym, go visit someone in a nursing home or hospital or get together with other marginalized people who don’t like football.

There are things to do besides watch over-sized, bulging men in tights and monster pads throw an egg-shaped ball at each other while getting paid millions of dollars to run up and down a painted field from one pair of spiked posts to another.

For those multitudes who live from one ball game to another, continue to enjoy yourselves. I know that you will. Some of you will continue to lose money; some will win. You don’t need my permission to have a ball. You wouldn’t care to sit through the opera, symphony, stage play, or Bonanza reruns that I enjoy. Neither could you pay me to go to your games. I would rather read a book.

Renee Mullinax


I.D. or I.Q.?

To the editor:

Regarding a voter ID requirement, it seems we’re more in need of a voter I.Q. requirement, and especially so for the candidates. This is my 39 cents worth.

Charles Hand


Nation’s credibility is at stake

To the editor:

There is a phase of credibility which enhances the tenacity of duty.  Duty toward one’s country, fellow man and the duty toward oneself is essential to accomplish our government’s mission of peace throughout the world.

The credibility of our nation, for which we are somewhat responsible, is maintaining a non reproachable character, a burden often tried to its limits.

Often governments with conflicting beliefs will try subversive measures to compromise their  country’s credibility and subdue it’s people.  But if dedicated determination, coupled with the relationship and cooperation shared with the people and agencies of governmental structure, these oppressors will falter in their task and the credibility of the nation can again be restored.

It appears, we as a nation of free people, stumble at times to maintain a sense of accomplishment.  The complex working of our government to shroud, not  deceive, are to protect the interest of the people.  Doing so enables compatable relationships to coexist with functional readiness to deter foreign and domestic subliminal activities.

A self governed people will question the activities of  lawmakers to ensure compatable attitudes with those they represent.  Analyzing national policies toward affairs, at home and abroad, is a healthy practice of responsible citizens.

Without an effective source of critical scrutiny our government’s credibility and that of other nations could become rampant with moral decline.

Our nation has a burden of responsibility, but with continued support of the people, success and growth will ensure continuance of a model government for all nations to admire and fashion their political ideas.

Joseph M. Edwards



Comments (3)
Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 06, 2014 21:22

Mr. Hand, the quality of the elected public officials will increase with the quality of the voter.  One very controversial and radical idea I heard once mentioned by some in the media is disenfranchising those receiving (some forms of ) public assistance as we do those who are incarcerated.  As bad off as America is financially, it doesn't make sense that those taking from public money can pool their voting power to give themselves a raise.  I'm not sure I could argue that idea very well, but I likely could do so better than an IQ requirement.  It might have a similar effect.  And I'd have to study the how/why felons can't vote to figure out if that justification can be extended. 


I'll bet Mr. Zimmerman has some kind of Constitutional quote that he can whip out that could put it in perspective???

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 07, 2014 09:08

A quick check suggests "felony disenfranchisement" cannot be extended to those taking from public monies.  Taking from public monies (government assistance) does not qualify as "participation of rebellion, or other crime" as defined in the 4th Amendment.  So the only way to make this happen is with another Amendment to the Constitution - and even that would have to be carefully crafted to be compatible with other Amendments.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 07, 2014 10:43

           Mr. Lilly;

           There is no right to vote by the Federal Constitution. Only prohibitions against discrimination. The original idea was that voting was to be local as much as possible. Voting was restricted to property owners. "No taxation without representation" eliminated those who by and large paid no tax as they did not engage in commerce overseas whereby tarrifs were charged. Madison recognized that the worker-classes could become pawns of the rich and could be enticed into voting against their own interest. Eventually, states/communities allowed people to show their paid property tax receipt in order to vote. Both my grandmothers had to do that. One was born in the country with no birth certificate. One was left on a doorstep in Wabash, Ind. She never knew who her parents were. In "boobied-half" family, every one of her sibling's name is misspelled on their birth certificate. There are still many people with similar problems.

              The voting rights act is the law of the land, essentually. States are obligated to follow it. Unfortunetly, the harm done by discrimination by race, religion, sex, etc, is usually done at the time of the election and can only be addressed after the fact. Except as citizens object to laws they perceive to be unjust ahead of the election. Such "remonstrations" are what we are seeing now.

               Futhermore, OUR Federal constitution thru its Amendments equally protects "all persons" assumption of innocence. While We can insist that anyone prove they pass the requirement to vote when they register, once that is accomplished, it is assummed they are not in violation of the requirements when they then exercise their opinion by voting. However that does not prevent a person from voting illegaly. But, the percentage of such illegal action is very small. In most cases by accident. In the last Presidential election a woman from Colorado purpously voted in two precincts in order to show that it could be done. Cost her big time.

             Voting is not the crime. Failure to properly registure and abide by registration, is.

              Regardless, those who met past requirements should not be burdoned with new one's per the "due process" clause.



If you wish to comment, please login.