An adjunct psychology lecturer at the University of Arizona resigned over what she now calls “a sick joke” (Tuesday article “Blog blunder fells UA teacher“).
How ironic. A psychologist should know better.
U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl wrote a fictional debate, including banter and interruptions from other senators, and quietly slipped it into the Congressional Record after a debate on the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Kyl clearly intended to mislead the Supreme Court about the intention of the law being debated.
In a legal brief he filed with the court, he implied that the “debate” was live. And the Bush administration, to prove its case, referenced the Kyl-Graham “debate” in its court filings.
Supreme Court justices typically read the record to figure out the lawmakers’ legislative intent. So Kyl tried to trick them into believing the lawmakers meant something they didn’t.
The U.S. Senate is coming back in session this week, and Kyl should take the floor and apologize for his deception.
We voters on the Navajo Reservation do not appreciate his dishonesty.
Right to exist
Matthew Somers has every right to his opinion (Saturday letter, “U.S. on wrong side”), but he seems influenced by common misconceptions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel is not an apartheid state. It is home to hundreds of churches, mosques and synagogues.
You need not be Jewish to vote, own property, attend school or hold office. That’s more than Palestinians can do in neighboring Arab countries.
Can you guess what right Jews have in the disputed territories?
He expressed concern about this escalation dooming the “two-state goal expressed for years by all concerned.” By “all concerned,” did he mean the Palestinian government, which refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist?
That same government celebrated Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza by destroying greenhouses left for them, firing hundreds of rockets into Israel and bombing food stands and shopping malls, killing innocent civilians intentionally?
He said some may call him anti-Semitic for expressing his views. I would call him misinformed.
The conflict is very complicated, with victims on both sides. However, I believe Israel will stop defending herself once the Palestinians and their Hamas-led government stop the attacks.
I do not believe the Palestinians and their Hamas-led government will stop the attacks as long as Israel continues to exist.
I support the government that shares with the world its contributions to science, medicine, agriculture and technology, the government that allows the Red Cross to check on its “captives” and the government that provides democratic rights. Not the government whose biggest export is terrorism.
Re: Salomón R. Baldenegro’s My Tucson column July 5 (“Americans desecrate our flag every day“):
Mr. Baldenegro has some odd ideas of what constitutes desecration of our flag.
Wearing the flag on a uniform, or having it autographed by the president, is a far cry from burning it or walking on it.
I do not understand why we should be the only country that allows it.
What would have happened to the man who burned a Mexican flag here if police had not been on hand to protect him?
What would have happened if he had done in Mexico City the same thing protesters did here?
What would have happened to those high school students if they had run an American flag up the pole over the Mexican flag in Mexico?
Baldenegro’s comment that the amendment was to divert attention from the war in Iraq was a low insult.
I appreciate Jeff Smith’s comments July 5 (“Freedom is basic fabric of Old Glory”).
I imagine if George Washington and his army had found a Tory burning our flag, their response would have been a musket ball or bayonet to inflict a permanent attitude adjustment.
While I have not shed blood for the flag, I have marched behind it, saluted it, served under it, and it was on my father’s coffin at his funeral.
So we do have common ground.
I agree a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
We just need a law with a hefty fine to make the leftist yahoos and those who hate us very sorry they desecrated it.
JOHN F. SUKEY
Free to speak for symbol
I agree with Jeff Smith that the flag should be venerated.
I disagree with his interpretation of flag desecration as being a form of free speech.
What convoluted logic equates flag desecration with speech, free or otherwise?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding.
The justices have been horribly wrong before.
I am a veteran of World War II and the Korea and Vietnam wars, so I guess I’m qualified to let off a little steam over this interpretation of what constitutes desecration of our flag.