Be grateful for any benefit
TO THE EDITOR:
I find articles in the various papers complaining about the final form of the new drug benefit entitlement program being written by Congress.
Most writers seem to think the benefits are too small, that the recipients are going to get too little. Some say the program is going to cost the recipients too much. And others are angry that the proposed program doesn't cover 100 percent of all costs.
Lest we forget, Medicaid and Medicare are gifts given by taxpayers to the recipients. I don't know about you, but when someone gives me a gift, I don't complain and say, "This gift is not enough." I am thankful to have received the gift. This is why I don't understand the unthankful attitudes of some in our country.
It seems to me that we have become a people who expect entitlements. Everyone is looking to get something from the government. But government gets all its money from taxpayers. Without taxpayers, the government wouldn't have a group to take from to give to another. And as the entitlements grow, so does the burden placed on the backs of the taxpayers.
I've seen the animal advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals scream to high heaven about abused farm animals that were mistreated and worn out by the heavy burdens placed upon them by their masters. I hope the entitlement masters have pity on the taxpayers because as the load gets heavier and the recipients ask for more, I don't see an advocacy group for the taxpayers.
Don't treat dogs like trash
TO THE EDITOR:
Pamela Gilliam's July 2 letter, "Animals rule in E. Nashville," in which she suggests that dogs roaming the streets of East Nashville be picked up by garbage collectors and dumped head over haunch into the backs of garbage trucks must have been in jest because I cannot imagine anyone believing a method so cruel subject for serious consideration.
Dogs run the streets of Gilliam's neighborhood because humans treat them like garbage, because they don't bother to spay or neuter the animals who are their responsibility, because they don't bother to keep their animals safely within fences, because when they are tired of an animal's companionship they dump him in a park or in a neighborhood not their own, because when they move they leave him behind.
The solution to Gilliam's problem is for the humans in her neighborhood to treat animals with respect and consideration, not the opposite. Animals are not garbage.
LAURA M. MILLER
Good response to stolen signs
TO THE EDITOR:
I have a Mike Jameson sign in my yard and have been hearing through e-mail about how to replace one of his signs if it has been stolen. However, I am shocked to read that we're talking about 350 signs, and even more appalled to hear that the boy who was apprehended while stealing the Jameson signs was doing so in a vehicle registered to his opponent (June 30, "Political pilfering prolific," p. 1).
I applaud Jameson's reaction by not mentioning it on the campaign trail and instead staying focused on the issues. I wish more political candidates could exhibit his kind of humor ("I really didn't think a piece of cardboard with my name on it would be so irresistible") and his ability to rise above any pettiness and concentrate on what matters.
Justices should keep up with times
TO THE EDITOR:
Beside the news sources you mentioned in your July 2 editorial, "Stop porn, keep free speech in public libraries," if we believe Matt Drudge - and there is no reason why we shouldn't - the computers in Florida with filters installed cannot access his site, which provides access to many news sources from around the world. This makes the cure of filters worse than the problem.
To tie federal funding with filters is not in the best interest of the majority of users. Your solution of setting public library computers out in the open is reasonable. Theirs is not.
Drudge also suggests that the current Supreme Court has no clue about how computers and the Internet work. With all the cases coming up, it may be a good time to get some new blood on the bench.
When the lifetime appointments were introduced for justices on the Supreme Court, the average lifespan was in the 40s. It is now twice that, so it may be time to limit our justices' service either by age or terms of service, which on first thought could be nine years so that there is one new appointment each year.
37138To comment on a City Paper story or local issue, send us a typed letter 100 words or less (with zip code and a daytime phone number for verification) to: email@example.com, or Editor, The City Paper, P.O. Box 158434, Nashville, TN 37215. Letters may be edited to fit. There is no guarantee letters received will be printed.