From the first and last paragraphs of SuSu Levy’s environment essay (“Can only protect by stopping growth,” Letters, Oct. 8), she let readers view the contrast of opinions from the comparison of events 75 years apart with regard to population in pre-World War II Germany and post-1960s America.
Population controls have dangerous parallels
From the first and last paragraphs of SuSu Levy’s environment essay (“Can only protect by stopping growth,” Letters, Oct. 8), she let readers view the contrast of opinions from the comparison of events 75 years apart with regard to population in pre-World War II Germany and post-1960s America. One specific German chancellor was as concerned about the influence on German culture by many different sub-cultures within the German nation in those days (specifically since the late 1910s) as writers in the present, including Levy, who point to their perception of detrimental changes in our own nation. This concern about “mindless growth” is expressed by Levy with the wording “… mainly due to immigrants and their high fertility” regarding diminishing resources.
Submit your letter to the editor
The hyper-inflation bankruptcy of the German economy during the 1920s, after the country was financially pounded by fighting and subsequently losing the Great War, made our Great Depression look like a minor setback for the common people. The rage that Adolph Hitler felt for the causes of the destruction of his very culture came from his perception of how sub-cultures (including American New York businessmen) took the good from the German culture without giving in return. Is this not similar to the opinion that many present writers have about the American culture?
There isn’t much wrong with a predominant majority within a culture striving to preserve that culture or even a new minority that was a majority striving to restore lost glory in the culture. The human condition hopes that the best influences in a social group will restore good order and prosperity for the people. All we can do is observe events, offer opinions, work hard for just fairness and pray no one goes too far.
Protecting religious beliefs
I think that most of the detractors of Proposition 102 think that just because a law is on the books it will stay there, or at least so they tell us. California passed a law that marriage was between a man and a woman and we see what happened when it went to that state’s Supreme Court. I wish the government was not the entity passing out marriage licenses and then we would not need this law.
If a case went before the Arizona Supreme Court and our law was overturned, then every church in the state could then be found to be discriminatory by refusing to wed same-sex couples, even though their long-established beliefs are that marriage is between one man and one woman. Prop. 102 is about protecting our First Amendment rights to practice our religious beliefs as we see fit, without interference from the government. Prop. 102 does not restrict any other group from creating their own civil unions, if they so choose. But it does prevent the city, county or state demanding the Catholic archbishop, Baptist pastor, Mormon bishop, or Muslim imam perform a same-sex marriage or lose their status as a tax-exempt religion. Vote “yes” for Prop. 102 and preserve the traditional definition of marriage permanently in our Arizona constitution.
Intent is to discriminate
Regarding the commentary by Daryl James about Proposition 102 (“Marriage deregulation would cut both ways,” Opinion 2, Oct. 5):
In supporting Prop. 102 and opposing the Tribune’s position, James used several hundred words without once stating what is the obvious, underlying objective of the proposal’s supporters: They don’t want gays to have any rights, especially the right to marry. As a gay man, I say that it is not James’ right to decide if I can be married in the eyes of the law. He and the Prop. 102 supporters know that the world will not fall apart if I can get married legally. Rather than discriminate against me, why doesn’t James do something about the divorce rate? Why doesn’t he lobby for mandatory prenuptial counseling or mandatory waiting periods for divorce?
He doesn’t, because the objective of Prop. 102 is to discriminate against gays, not to protect marriage.
MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTIONS
Sheriff office needs change
For some time the more alert citizens of Maricopa County have been criticizing Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the way he has run his jails, which has resulted in lawsuits and unnecessary costs. Finally, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care has notified Arpaio that it was withdrawing its accreditation for the jails’ clinics. This should be the final straw! If we want a professionally run Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, we must elect Dan Saban on Nov. 4.
Make them live with their choices
I find it amazing how little responsibility people take for their own actions. The U.S. taxpayer is now responsible for billions in money paid to and for companies and mortgages that were poorly managed. If I ran my household like the Wall Street firms, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and the banks, I would be living on the streets. The only bailout I would get is a meal at the Salvation Army, if I was lucky.
What happened to capitalism — if you make poor or bad decisions, then you live with them? If you borrow more than you earn, you go bust. If you buy more house then you can afford you get evicted. What are we becoming, a European socialized country?
I propose to let the companies with their hands out for tax dollars go out of businesses. I do not want a 1930s depression. But bailing everyone out is not the answer either.
If you are upside down in your house, sorry, but that is your fault. If you gave a janitor a home mortgage for $400,000 that he can not afford, you’re an idiot. If you build gas-guzzling SUVs and make millions and the market changes and you cannot, then you go the way of the dinosaurs.
Banks should renegotiate loans
When I was in the auto sales/finance business, the worst thing we could do was repossess a car. It always came back needing reconditioning and other added expenses. We would often sell the vehicle for less than what was owed on it. I know the banks are doing the same thing now. It was always best to try to keep the customer in the car at a lower payment or pretty much what ever it took. I know the banks are not doing this now.
Why? Is the government going to continue the same thing that the lenders are doing? How does that help anyone except the financial institutions?
If the private companies make bad choices, we don’t get huge severance checks. How come incompetent people such as the recently fired Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac executives get several million dollars in severance pay instead of just getting the boot? Incompetence should not be rewarded.