Rein in rottweilers in East Nashville
TO THE EDITOR:
I would like to bring the city's attention to an issue that is plaguing my East Nashville neighborhood. Several days ago I was walking my dog, a medium-sized mutt, when four dogs - at least one of which was a full-grown rottweiler - ran out of a front yard and attacked us.
The dogs were completely unrestrained: no fence, chain or leash. They were also completely unprovoked. In the scramble to protect my dog, I was bitten on the leg and had to make a trip to the emergency room. Fortunately, a passing motorist stopped and let me and my dog jump in his car. I don't know what would have happened if no one else had been around, and I am thankful that neither my dog nor I was seriously injured or killed.
Now I can no longer walk by myself or with my dog without some kind of self-protection. It is unfortunate that in this beautiful neighborhood I cannot walk down the sidewalk without fear of attack by a loose or stray dog.
I have lived here for two months now, and almost every day I see dogs wandering the neighborhood. Dog owners need to be more responsible and make sure their pets are restrained at all times. If you get a dog and realize you cannot care for it, please find it another home. It is not fair to the animal or your neighbors. It is illegal and dangerous to have loose dogs roaming anywhere, especially in a high-density neighborhood like East Nashville.
Tired of protests against protesters
TO THE EDITOR:
As a U.S. citizen with blood of an American Revolution war hero washing through my veins, I am compelled to speak my mind about the flagrant hatred of genuine U.S. antiwar dissent that is plaguing this nation.
I am tired of neo-Americans waltzing around me with arrogance and sheer hatred of me for my firm beliefs that are my American-given right, thinking they are more American than I because they support President Bush's imperialistic invasion of Iraq. If we were to turn the clock back to the 1700s, these very war supporters would be deemed Tories for their behavior toward the antiwar crowd.
If any side of this pro-war/antiwar debate is un-American, it is the pro-war folk that are consumed with fear, telling me to leave my country because I dissent this invasion of a Third World nation in my and my ancestor's name.
HANNAH C. BURDINE
Back troops now; election will come
TO THE EDITOR:
The U.S. military is presently engaged in two horrific wars: one against terrorists in Afghanistan another in Iraq. After Sept. 11 few Americans opposed an armed conflict against Osama bin Laden. Many, especially self-appointed Hollywood and other celebrity experts, object to warfare against the dictator Saddam Hussein.
Our commander-in-chief, President George W. Bush, bears the brunt of this opposition. Daily there is much rhetorical comment from those in the various media and citizens who feel that Bush is not our legitimate president, having been narrowly appointed by a biased Supreme Court.
Personally, I normally believe in the popular axiom, "One man, one vote - winner take all." However, it might be of interest that the Electoral College possibly could not have served the common person well in the presidential election of 2000:
1. Bush won 29 of the 50 states; Gore won 20, Florida?
2. Bush won 2,434 counties; Gore 677.
3. Bush carried 2,427 square miles; Gore 2,434.
Of course, the 20 states that Gore did win have the most Electoral College votes. They also have the biggest population, most union workers, welfare recipients and immigrants.
Why not support our brave young military forces and our president now? We will have the privilege of another election in 2004.
GERALD B. SPROWLS
Let's rethink women in military
TO THE EDITOR:
With the death of Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, the mother of a 4-year-old boy and a 3-year-old girl and a source of pride in her Hopi community, and with the capture of several other females in recent Iraqi conflicts, I believe a re-evaluation of women in combat units is in order.
Although it may be politically correct and in line with the feminist agenda, we must ask ourselves, is it reasonable, logical, prudent and in the best interest of the country? While there is a place in the military for women, we must ask ourselves, is it morally responsible to place mothers in combat units considering the collateral damage done to their children?
All things being equal, I don't think many, male or female, would disagree that mothers are usually better qualified than fathers to perform the vital function of child-rearing in society. While men have enormous egos, which is the nature of the beast, the truth is that when it comes to mothers caring, nurturing and providing for children, we men are a distant second.
Unless we are fighting on our soil door to door and have no other choice, let's protect our most valuable assets - our children - and preserve the most important person in their young lives, their mother.
To 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: firstname.lastname@example.org , 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.