Re: June 8 letter to the editor, “Re: June 8 letter to the editor, “Plenty done for minorities. Stand.”
I’m getting straight to the point: Saying “If you don’t love our country, then leave” is the same old racist rant from racists.
This country is not yours; it is all of America’s, even those who it discriminated against in the past — and still some today.
From your seat of privilege, you stated, “I think this country has gone overboard trying to appease minorities, yet these men want more.”
In that statement, you made an assumption about an entire group of people. You can disagree about whether one should stand for the anthem, but do not show your racist views by making ignorant comments like that. You really should give all of us a break by not spewing such nonsense.
S.A. LEE, ROUND ROCK
Too kneel or not too kneel. Seems like this controversy is not going away any time soon — soon being the start of the 2018 football season. Personally, I find players’ desire to kneel during the national anthem repugnant.
Full disclosure: I am a Vietnam veteran — and like all veterans before me and those veterans who will come after me, we swear an oath, as stated in the U.S. Constitution, that we will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And that includes all constitutional amendments, especially the First Amendment.
As much as I dislike it, I will defend your free speech right to protest and disrespect our national anthem. But, I ask that you defend my free speech right should I yell at you and say, “Hey boy. Get up and stand on your own two feet.”
STEPHEN BERNSTEIN, AUSTIN
Mr. Tony B., you left us too soon.
Thank you for your wit, energy, wry smile, warm sarcasm, humanity and righteous anger. Thank you for your boundless curiosity, extraordinary journeys and vibrant willingness to try new things. Our world so desperately needs these things today. We need more of your honesty, clarity and eagerness to confront nonsense wherever we see it. We need to seek adventure as you did.
One very dark day doesn’t change what you gave us. Somewhere and somehow, may you still seek out the new, raise your voice for others, and find new good things to eat. Put on that fresh Ramones T-shirt, get your notepad out and start raising a little fuss over there in “parts unknown.” For you, a new adventure has begun. For the rest of us, know that we will miss you and always appreciate what you gave us.
DON CILLO, TEMPLE
Re: June 7 letter to the editor, “Trump’s evangelical support defies reason.”
The writer made a request for some evangelical Christians to explain their support for President Trump.
Gleaning from a blog titled The Salty Sailor by Karen Vaughn in support of the president:
“Sometimes God uses the no-nonsense, salty sailor to get the job done … . Should it matter to me if a fireman drops an f-bomb while he’s pulling me from a burning building? Would I really care about what came out of his mouth in those moments? Heck no. He wasn’t sent there to save my soul and I’m not looking to him for spiritual guidance. All I’m thinking in those moments is, ‘Thank you, Jesus, for sending the fireman!’ [Trump] is crass. …He’s not careful with what he says, OK. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. But he is rebuilding the nation … . Forgive me if I’m smiling.”
PAMELA LUDLOW, GEORGETOWN
The phenomenon of evangelical support for President Trump has prompted a number of responses.
Some claim they like the message — policies — but not the messenger. Others say that the two are one and the same.
The great disciplines in the search for truth include science, the arts, philosophy and religion. Here, unsavory players may nonetheless produce great results, such as Picasso and Woody Allen. But in the quotidian disciplines of politics and commerce, the connection between personality and policy is much more immediate. It does make a difference who makes policy or sells products. The connections are more direct in time and place.
The pursuit of power or wealth involves huge temptations. If decisions are not informed by moral and ethical values, they will almost always result in exploitation. Politicians and business people must be held to higher standards, because they can help or harm directly. The calculus of compromise versus ideals must be approached very carefully.
PAYSON BLANCHARD, ROUND ROCK
Re: May 27 commentaries, “We’re finally talking about mass shootings. Now let’s act” and “3 hardest words in English language: ‘I was wrong.’”
Both the Sunday editorial and Leonard Pitts’ commentary referred to the availability of guns as the main culprit in the many shootings over the last couple of years.
I don’t care for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, but his comment — “It’s not about the guns; it’s about us” — brought disdain from both columns. If it is not about us as a society, then laying the blame on the availability of guns is lame.
When I grew up, my father’s guns were not locked up. Students brought rifles in their gun racks to school. Most anyone could obtain a gun if they wanted to. Back in the day, 100 guns plus 100 people did not add up to violence. Today, 100 guns plus 100 people adds up to some highly disturbed person is going to wreak havoc. What happened? The guns did not develop a warped mind. People did. Why and how?
SUSAN ETHEREDGE, LULING