Postmarks
Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, follow this link.
 |
Date Received: Thu., Nov. 19, 2009
TARGET SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAVLOV, NOT BAUMGARTEN
Dear Editor,
In last week's edition of the Chronicle, a letter of mine was published in which I blasted Marjorie Baumgarten's film criticism [“Postmarks,” Nov. 20]. But I made a terrible error in attributing to her a review of The Perfect Storm. You corrected me and pointed out that it was Marc Savlov, not Marjorie, who wrote the review of that film. My apologies to Ms. Baumgarten for my error. Sure, I consider her reviews to be awful, but she shouldn't be held responsible for a review she didn't pen. So instead, let me say to Mr. Savlov: "WTF, dude?" Typically, I agree with your take on films, and even when I disagree slightly, I still appreciate the verve and passion of your writing. But … The Perfect Storm? Really, Marc? I guess it goes to show that even great minds sometimes don't think alike.
|
Thanks,
Andy Buck
|
|
|
|
|
Date Received: Thu., Nov. 19, 2009
CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS ARE TIMELESS DOCUMENTS
Dear Editor,
Christian Wagner’s suggestion [“Postmarks,” Nov. 20] that Ron Paul is a neolithic statesman whose fierce defense of liberty has no place in our current age is a trite straw man. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are timeless documents, and their contained logic is not subject to some arbitrary expiration date. If, as he suggests, age is the bar by which to measure the soundness of our policies, then why have countless numbers of people spanning the political spectrum voiced their opposition to the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the innumerable other abrogations of our age-old natural rights? Habeas corpus was first affirmed with the Magna Carta of 1215; surely then, in its vapid decrepit age, it should be rightfully abolished. Policies and the ideas they espouse should be debated on their merits, not on some haughty air of ostentatious superiority. It seems from my vantage point that Wagner would like nothing more than to cherry-pick aspects from these documents, ignoring the parts that do not suit his open-armed embrace of an expansive central government. If we each ignore the aspects that don’t fit our own myopic world-view, then what is left? The founders foresaw this and provided our nation with a purposefully arduous process (Article Five) to accomplish such aims. These changes were not to be taken lightly nor were they for transient concerns. Therefore, ignoring this ageless document is the pinnacle of haphazard change our founders not only warned against but provided safeguards against. Lest we forget its intended purpose: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798
|
|
Adrian Maceiras
|
|
 (2)
|
|
Date Received: Thu., Nov. 19, 2009
HOW COULD THEY?
Dear Editor,
Re: “Headlines” [News, Nov. 20]: The Trail of Lights is one of the Top 10 best holiday light displays in America posted by USA Today. Here is the link: www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/10great/2007-12-06-10-great_N.htm. And how can the city scale it down when it draws more than 250,000 people each year? Why do city officials have to ruin a tradition like this? Even if the city charges $2 or $3, that still comes out to be around half a million dollars. What is the city doing?
|
|
Robert Newberry
|
|
(1)
|
|
