So-called 'party' primaries
Been thinking about the mailing of two ballots to "nonaffiliated" voters.
Somewhere, somehow, it seems to me someone has lost track of what a primary election is. As I understood it for years (and taught it in government classes), the purpose of the primary election was for the members of a political party is to select candidates to oppose members of the opposing party and sometimes independents in the general election. There has always been a deadline prior to the primary for unaffiliated voters to declare a party affiliation to vote in that party's primary. A person could, if desired, change party affiliation if - of course - that deadline had not passed.
Unaffiliated voters could not vote in the primary election. This is how it has been, and how it should be.
Now unaffiliated voters are going to be mailed the primary ballots of both parties and can choose to vote in one? (And don't even get me started on the reasons against mail-in elections). Someone not willing to go to the election officials and declare for a party has no business voting in the primary.
It has been said no voter fraud will be allowed.
Who's in the tariff war?
For a long time, we have seen numerous articles, hours of TV coverage, and opinions from every corner on tariffs - pro and con - on what would be desirable/disastrous and why or why not, but I have yet to see anything but a few vague references as to actually which countries are charging which other countries on which goods or materials, and how much they are charging.
As we have been widely warned that a trade war caused by this matter is right around the corner, some actual information might be helpful.
I hope that The Gazette will correct this deficiency and give us some facts to enable us to evaluate the festivities. I bet I'm not alone among your readers who would appreciate this information
Lawrence E. Starbuck
Look at the numbers
I read the story from news services that President Donald Trump was "flexing his clemency powers once again" in commuting Alice Marie Johnson's sentence.
I know it's the media's mantra of "all things negative must be published" about this president. Look at the numbers. Trump has pardoned five people and commuted two people.
Barak Obama pardoned 212 people and commuted 1,715 people. The media needs to keep their eye on the ball and report newsworthy stories. This president is doing some great work for our country, and we should hear about it more often.
Against religious intolerance
The recent Supreme Court decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is intolerant and exclusive. An argument for the decision was stated in The Gazette's recent opinion section: "A state that forces artistic expression might demand gay bakers create cakes for homophobes. It might order a black baker to design cakes for the Ku Klux Klan."
The KKK's and homophobe's biases are learned behaviors and should not be equated to being black, female or gay which are conditions (or mostly conditions) of birth. Further, the argument implies that gays are as evil as KKK and homophobes and deserve to be excluded. Gay folks, as a group, are as respectable as nongays and deserve to be included just as blacks and women deserve to be included.
Feelings of isolation and exclusion are one of the most damaging conditions to the health and well-being of humans and society. Therefore, businesses should be allowed to not do business with those who intend to exclude or harm people.
Free speech is limited when it will harm people. Religious freedom should be similarly limited.
I question whether the baker's refusal to serve gays is a closely held belief. I give him the benefit of the doubt if he also excludes divorced people who marry others (thereby making permanent their sin of divorce). If the baker can make allowances for the sins of being divorced, eating shrimp and wearing garments of different material (three sins in the Bible), then why not make allowances for gays? I suspect this is a personal issue, not a religious one.
Also, Commissioner Dianne Rice is correct that religion was used to justify slavery and the Holocaust.
Please read "On Jews and Their Lies" by Martin Luther, which gave credibility to Nazi's treatment of Jews. We all should be biased against religious intolerance that leads to exclusion of respectable people. Fortunately, the SCOTUS decision is narrow in scope.
Comfortable past existed for some
How interesting that Walter Williams' column and Robert Kennedy's quote appeared at the same time on the same page. Kennedy speaks of "the security of a comfortable past which, in fact, never existed."
In high school in Detroit, I had the experience that Williams refers to in carrying an M-1, 30 Cal rifle back and forth to school on public transportation. When I got on the bus carrying my rifle, no one raised an eyebrow. I took it home on several days to practice the assembly and disassembly of the rifle for an ROTC Field Day competition at Tiger stadium.
So there are exceptions to Kennedy's statement: The comfortable past did exist for me.
Donald F. Panzer