Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor: May 2

Stand up to the bullies who would cut food stamps

Recently, members of the U.S. House passed a bill that would undermine the program commonly known as food stamps. This would hurt the unemployed and marginally employed, many of whom are women with dependent children.

It has been established that simply repealing the Bush-era tax cuts would reduce the deficit and go far towards balancing the budget.

These lawmakers prefer instead to bully the vulnerable among us. If the tax cuts were to be repealed, the ultra-rich might have to give up a yacht or sports car in order to pay taxes at a rate already expected from those with middle incomes.

However, if the food stamp bill is passed, actual human beings will go without food in a country that has plenty of food to provide for them. Enduring life with one less yacht may take some getting used to, but it seems that hunger pains might be a more difficult adjustment.

How can anyone who would support this cut live with himself or sleep at night? How can anyone vote for someone capable of suggesting such a bill? It's time for this country to take a stand against the bullies in Washington, and the citizens of the commonwealth need to take the lead. Contact those who introduced this bill and tell them to stop picking on hungry folks.

Then, go to the polls and vote them out the next time you get a chance.

Gretchen Ely

Lexington


Biased headline

I am very disappointed that the paper printed such an obviously biased headline, "Safety for all vs. golf for some."

Golf and safety are apples and oranges in the first place. In the second place, if I have a heart event, I don't need a hook and ladder, six firemen and a chief in my yard. I just need two EMTs who know what they are doing, with an ambulance to get me to the hospital.

Why is Councilman Jay McChord waging this war on golf? Beautiful and reasonable golf courses are such assets. Tourists often come here to avail themselves of our excellent courses. I assume that they spend some money while here.

Also, why is it that homes spring up around golf courses? Because they are restful and beautiful. If McChord has his way, our courses will become housing developments never to be seen again.

Please don't destroy our most beautiful assets because some non-golfer doesn't get it. And Herald-Leader: Please don't publish such biased headlines. I truly thought you were better than that.

Judy Harvey

Lexington


Puzzle answers slimy

I am appalled that your paper would print the New York Time's April 21 crossword puzzle. Some of the answers were "pot smoke," "sex toys," "pop a pill" and "porn star."

It is especially offensive that it included "Praise God" among the answers. I think you need to check these before they are printed and you need to apologize to readers.

The puzzle was by David Quarfoot. Looks like he stuck his foot in his mouth as did the Herald-Leader. Your paper is responsible for anything printed therein.

If you need a person to edit your paper, I am looking for work.

Shirley Grace Kelly

Richmond


Free UK from state

Considering that the University of Kentucky has gone from a state-supported to a state-assisted to a state-obstructed institution, I have a proposal.

Since UK is burdened with arduous state regulations and procedures, and that it gets very little funding or benefit from its connection with the state, I propose that a group of alumni, faculty and perhaps students, come together to offer to buy UK from the state.

The state needs the money, obviously, and I'll bet that we could operate UK for less money and with greater efficiency, once the connection with the state is severed. If someone with organizing experience and/or money wants to put this together, count me in.

Michael Kennedy

Lexington


Idea for UK fans

This is just a suggestion: While the Florida Gator fans have the big Gator chomp, University of Kentucky fans could adopt the Wildcat scratch gesture, which would go along with the mascot's name.

Maybe the Big Blue Nation could give it a thought.

Also, I would like to thank the paper for excellent coverage of the "Scratch Cats" basketball season and especially the Sunday editions of the Final Four on April 1 and the NCAA National Championship on April 8.

Keith Fletcher

Middlesboro


Bigotry rationalized

In regards to the letter, "Support for marriage doesn't make one a hater:" Spouting bigotry while denying being a bigot is a logical contradiction.

Supporting "traditional marriage," the writer espouses the old "we've always done it this way" argument. This is more akin to an excuse than a logical argument and has probably been a cog thrown into the wheel of progress since the dawn of human civilization.

The writer insists that homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," but anyone who has witnessed the torment of gay youth would beg to differ. Who would chose to suffer the scorn of their peers?

The writer says that gay people should be satisfied with the rights they already have. She is indignant that they would seek a right afforded every other person in society.

Besides the obvious issues of parental rights, insurance coverage, inheritance protection and hospital visitation — rights married people take for granted — there is the simple desire that their partnerships be granted equal dignity.

Since gay people are merely asking to be treated like everyone else, this is a civil rights issue. Civil rights are not up for popular vote, despite the unconstitutional actions of some states. Since the courts are now involved, I suggest this writer adjust to the idea of legal same-sex marriage.

Pam Holmes

Lexington


Health costs shared

A recent letter writer argued that the current contraceptive health care debate is not about denying women access to legal products, but instead whether such medical costs should be eligible for insurance coverage.

The writer objects to "people demanding that someone else pick up the tab for the choices they themselves have made" and believes that neither an employer nor he should have any obligation to pay for such products or services.

By this logic, all smokers should take full responsibility for the cost of any heart- or lung-related health problems; all overweight people should take full responsibility for the cost of any diabetes care; and all athletes should take full responsibility for the cost of treating any sports-related injuries.

Many of the health care issues we face are connected in some way to our personal life choices. We cannot dictate specific details of how our individual federal and state tax contributions are spent.

In the same way, how would it be possible for individuals to impose their personal values (religious or otherwise) on all other participants in an insurance program with regard to which specific medical procedures, products or services should be eligible for cost reimbursement?

James MacLeod

Versailles

  Comments