This is the most important election in the last 20 years, and people need unvarnished facts, not dimwitted polemics to make up their minds on whom to entrust the future of the country to.
To the stiffs who own this newspaper, a suggestion: You already have a fine, open-minded journalist who looks at both sides of an issue and gives readers the facts they need - his name is Stu Bykofsky. You ought to make him the political reporter - he is one serious dude! He loves to travel (especially on the company dime).
Keith A. Barger
Stu Bykofsky: You ask who's more intolerant, Bill Maher or Tim Tebow.
Well, Maher goes on TV and speaks his mind. Tebow, along with his father, Bill, happily heads out often on missionary trips where they "shove religion down the throats" of Filipinos while building them a few houses in an effort to brainwash them.
A kick in the assets
In testifying before the House Committee on Ways and Means, Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania's Secretary of Public Welfare, said, "Whatever legislative changes are adopted, make sure the underlying alignment of incentive among the three parties - recipients, taxpayers and government bodies - remains vibrant." Alexander's recent announcement about reinstating the asset test for food-stamp program participants, however, is a perfect example of oxymoronic policy-making.
Requiring that elderly, low-income or recently unemployed households tap meager savings is punitive and lacking in compassion. As a public-policy initiative, it runs counter to the very incentives cited by Alexander. Food-stamp benefits, which are funded entirely by Washington, put food on our neighbors' tables, keep children and the elderly from being malnourished and stimulate local economies. In a single month, roughly $80 million in food-stamp benefits circulate through businesses in the five-county region. That's how I would define "vibrant."
The Webster's offense
In Karen Ritter's article, "Roe at 39: Onslaught of assaults," she references the word "choice" (or, if you will, "antichoice" or "choose") nine separate times in referring to women's rights. What "choice" is Ritter referring to? Obviously, the right to choose an abortion. Taking it further - and words do have meaning - what is an "abortion"? Dictionary.com defines abortion as "any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy." "Terminating" is defined as "to bring to a definite end, esp. before a natural conclusion." Continuing down this though t process, what is a "pregnancy"? The same site defines pregnancy as "the condition of carrying developing offspring within the body." Finally, "offspring" is defined as "children or young of a particular parent or progenitor."
So, therefore, one can define the "choice" Ritter speaks of as the ending before a natural conclusion of a pregnancy, which is a developing offspring, and an offspring is a child or children (in the womb). Conclusion: The ending (death) of a child, if you will.
When does a women (or anyone, for that matter) have the "right" to "choose" to cause death to a child?