Skip to main content

One of the dumbest letters-to-the-editor I've ever read

Sometimes I wonder if newspapers simply draw letters-to-the-editor out of a hat to decide which ones to publish. With this next one I'm about to share, I firmly believe either that's the case or the person in charge of publishing such letters received a dare he or she couldn't refuse.

This letter was published in today's Columbus Dispatch and was written by one Ellie Howes of Delaware, Ohio. The letter is titled, "Does Obama want to tear down U.S.?" It only gets better (worse) from there...

In this letter, Ms. Howe writes the following:

"I thought President Barack Obama was there to lead and work with our representatives. He should be working for a compromise. Maybe he hopes we'll fall apart. He said he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States. We thought he meant for the better.

Apparently, he meant it's no longer 'we the people.' Now it's 'the government knows best.'

This is not consistent with our Founding Fathers' intentions and our Constitution."

Ms. Howes is absolutely right. I assume she has met the Founding Fathers and co-wrote the Constitution, which would make her the oldest living person in history. Like I said, she's right, though. The Founding Fathers were completely against a president being elected through a democratic process, a bill becoming law by passing both the House and the Senate before being signed by the elected president, and after the bill was upheld by the Supreme Court, being implemented as law in the country. What the Founding Fathers were obviously in favor of was for a party, which lost back-to-back presidential elections and lost seats in both the House and the Senate in the most recent election, to shutdown the government, place this nation on the brink of default, and cost people their jobs because they didn't like a law which passed through both Houses of Congress, was signed by the elected (and re-elected) president, and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Shutting down the government because a law was to be implemented through a democratic means? Yeah, that's exactly what the Founding Fathers would have wanted...

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/10/16/does-Obama-want-to-tear-down-US.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...