Recent editorials from Tennessee newspapers:
Paris (Tenn.) Post-Intelligencer on the war's ugliest side shown in Pakistan:
Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman got it right: War is hell.
There's not much gallant or noble about it. It's blood and body parts and wailing.
"Collateral damage" is the sanitized way to describe the suffering of innocent bystanders.
On Sunday, 78 civilians died in the most horrific attack yet on Pakistan's Christian minority. A pair of suicide bombers blew themselves up amid hundreds of worshippers at the historic All Saints Church in Peshawar.
The Jundullah arm of the Taliban claimed responsibility, saying they would continue to target non-Muslims until the United States stops drone attacks on Taliban forces in Pakistan's remote tribal region.
The U.S. has carried out several hundred drone attacks against militants and their allies near the Afghan border. The latest came on the same day as the church attack, when missiles hit two compounds in the North Waziristan tribal area,. Six suspected militants died.
The church bombing injured 141 people, including 37 children. The death count included 34 women and seven children.
It may not be tactically correct to do so, but it's hard to overlook the imbalance: Six dead on one side, 78 on the other.
Targeting innocent people "is against the teachings of Islam and all religions," the Pakistani prime minister said.
One of the problems of the nasty business of warfare is that it can be hard to tell who the innocent ones are. But it's certain that those who died at All Saints Church didn't go around killing people.
Daily News Journal, Murfreesboro, Tenn., on everyone can help promote tourism:
State officials apparently are serious about boosting tourism in the state, and a beneficiary of their efforts should be Rutherford County, which according to the latest report, had $272.8 million in tourism-related spending in 2012.
The county, which ranks in the Top 10 in counties in Tennessee for tourism, saw an increase in tourism-related spending from $252.83 million in 2011.
The Tennessee Tourism Committee last week released its strategic plan for tourism development in the state, and Rutherford County should benefit from at least two of the proposed initiatives, if not more.
Uncle Dave Macon Days would seem ideal for proposed creation of a network of musical events.
High school sports championships in Murfreesboro, the Richard Siegel Soccer Complex and work on expanded tennis facilities at Old Fort Park all fit rather nicely into the proposed targeting of the youth sports market.
Rutherford County already has several tourism advantages. ...
In this time of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, the community should have become more aware of the county's related historical resources, including Stones River National Battlefield, Fortress Rosecrans, Oaklands Historic House Museum and the Sam Davis Home.
Recent announcement that the Sam Davis Home plans to cut back on its days of operation has raised some concerns, but perhaps that decision should be an incentive for residents of the community also to avail themselves of all the opportunities that are available at the Sam Davis Home and the country's other tourism sites.
Tourism-generated tax revenue helps to reduce the tax burden of those of us who live here, so helping to recruit tourists can be good for everyone.
Rutherford County continues to be a county with a growing and diverse population, and "word of mouth" usually is the best method to get those around the region, nation and world to visit the attractions here.
To have the best information, however, we all need to visit these sites.
The Tennessean, Nashville, Tenn., on food program poor choice for cutting fat:
Congress has found a perverse niche — it's good at pitting groups of Americans against each other who really have no quarrel. The current mess over food assistance and farm assistance is such an example.
The decision years ago to include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) with legislation to aid farmers in bad years was a cynical move, though made with good intentions. Supporters of federal food assistance were mostly urban, farm assistance supporters mostly rural, and at the time, help for farmers was popular public policy.
That was before the current majority in the U.S. House, who really don't seem to think anyone is deserving of help. Everywhere the House leadership looks, they see deadbeats.
Are they right, sometimes? Undoubtedly; there always will be someone who tries to get something for nothing. But in their version of new legislation governing SNAP, which at least is no longer linked to farm subsidies, they have sought to cut away healthy tissue as well as the bad.
By cutting almost $4 billion a year from the $80 billion SNAP program, many Americans are expected to go hungry through no fault of their own.
The Senate version — which continues to link farm subsidies and food stamps — would cut only a tenth as much from the nutrition program.
If only House conservatives would look at the real numbers and practices on food assistance, perhaps they would relent.
Other nutritional programs such as Women, Infants and Children and free and reduced-price school lunches are not on the chopping block, as yet. They, and nongovernmental assistance such as community food banks, also do not reach as many of the nation's poor.
The bottom line is that keeping fellow Americans from going hungry should be one of the LAST government services to be gutted in tough economic times — because whatever difficulties middle- and upper-income Americans are experiencing, you can be sure that things are far tougher for the poor.
Don't expect the House and Senate bills to be reconciled soon. But if you care about how society treats its most vulnerable, do let your representative know.