I'm sick of hearing damage to Israeli houses equated with the annihilation of entire neighborhoods and their inhabitants. The news media seems to qualify every mention of the destruction wrought by Israel upon the Palestinian people by mentioning property damage in remote Israeli settlements. Similarly the 13 Israeli deaths are portrayed as an equitable tit for tat to the 1,300 recorded Palestinian deaths in this latest campaign of terror. If news media were required to give equal coverage to each individual Palestinian killed as is given to each Israeli casualty, there would be no room for commercial breaks on the nightly news and the rainforests of western Canada would be wiped out in supplying extra pages to newspapers.
Now that the Israeli leadership has bolstered it's lagging popularity in time for it's elections, perhaps the Palestinian people will be spared any more incursions. Mission accomplished.
Let's vote over the Internet
The Brainerd Dispatch editorial piece on the disturbingly large number of Minnesotans who thought so little or so little or their state and nation that they voted for Al Franken, suggests we send our suggestions on how to improve the voting process to Mark Ritchie.
We have the technology that would allow registered voters to vote over the Internet from the privacy of their own homes. Votes could be counted quickly and accurately and such a system could be easily monitored and controlled.
Voters who are still undecided the day before or the day of the election should only vote present. Voters who would even think of voting for someone like Franken could be given heavy doses of counseling and therapy.
Stephen A. Busch
No logic in argument
I'd like to respond to a letter I read late last week suggesting that as a method of helping solve the state's budget deficit, we quit funding abortions for low-income women. Although I could happily write all day about why this doesn't make sense, I'm limited to 300 words so I'll stick to the most basic logic here. Ignoring all the arguments that can be made for or against abortion, has the writer not considered the fact that women seeking abortions often do not have the means to care for a child? If they're forced to go through with the pregnancy, they will then very likely be forced to seek public assistance during pregnancy and after the birth.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion these days costs on average $400. As a mother, I can tell you it cost quite a bit more than $400 to give birth to and care for my child. Even if the women choose adoption, it would cost taxpayers more than $400 to provide pre-natal care. The argument that denying abortion funding to poor women somehow helps our budget deficit is simply a tactic used by people who would like to see abortion outlawed.
I'm all for a person using logical arguments to make their point, but this just isn't one of them. If your intent is to decrease the incidence of abortion, then why not lobby for more help for struggling mothers and children as a means to that end? I'm willing to bet that this same writer is against human services funding in general. My tax dollars fund plenty of things I don't agree with, but if we had a ballot initiative to approve each and every thing our tax money is spent on, we'd have a hopelessly deadlocked democracy.
Amy LaValle Hansmann
Brainerd Dispatch ©2013. All Rights Reserved.