Inbox — Oct. 28, 2009
Letters to the Editor
He Said, She Said
To my Inbox detractors:
Sarah Lunnie wrote that feminism is “a belief in the right to self-sovereignty of all persons, irrespective of gender” and my inference that it was “man-bashing” was “suggestive of cloaked misogyny” (LEO Weekly, Oct. 14). However, what Lunnie describes is not feminism; it’s humanism. And whatever warm-fuzzy definition she wants to give feminism, the result has been to seek rights for women when it benefits women and demand privilege when equality would disadvantage them.
I did not define feminism — outspoken feminists like Marilyn French, Andrea Dworkin and countless others defined feminism through their actions. If I come to the conclusion that feminism is anti-male, then I do so honestly, and moderate feminists who gladly lump themselves in with women who feel no need to “cloak” their hatred of men have no one else to blame.
Ph.D notwithstanding, Kelly A. Ryan steps on her own argument (Oct. 14). She says, “only the wealthiest women would have the means and need to make a financial contract with their spouses prior to marriage.” You mean women did own property, some were wealthy, but the majority of women were unaffected by the law that required men to take control of property upon marriage? Glad we agree.
Not only did women work, they were one of the first protected work classes — being guaranteed employment while young men working alongside them were fired at age 21 so they could seek a “family wage” even if no such work was available. And one question feminists have never answered is: With 90 percent of the population working in farm labor (women, too), just how exactly was society supposed to provide all those jobs?
I am accused of “manipulating history” for telling the other side of the story. But feminism is a one-sided account of history — an intellectually dishonest comparison of historical struggles through the lens of modern values. All of it is designed to point the finger of blame at men who themselves suffered and struggled right alongside women.
Where I come from a half-truth is actually a lie, but so long as feminists tell the story, then who will know?
Cavan A. Clark, Old Louisville
I can’t recall ever writing a letter to an editor about an article I read, so I guess this is a first for me. I moved back to Louisville after about an 18-year absence, and one of the things I looked forward to was LEO. However, I was really disappointed to see that it wasn’t the refreshing, funny, off-color read that it had been. It seemed to me to be filled with anger, criticism and, well, ugliness. But I am writing because I took the time to read “Soldier: Coming home from Iraq,” by Dominic Russ (Sept. 9 issue), and my hope was revived!
I appreciated this article not simply because I am a veteran and still serving in the U.S. Army, but because it was an honest view with no cracks about soldiers in a negative light or the administration that sent the soldiers there. His was an article that truly reflected the soldiers I come into contact with when I am on post (I recently left Fort Benning), and the soldiers I serve with who have been deployed. I thank you for the wonderful piece and pray there will be more in the near future.
Sonja Reynolds, Louisville
Dear Jim Welp,
Thank you for your reminder of the joy of riding a bicycle (LEO Weekly, Oct. 14)! It’s a message that bike riders everywhere can relate to, and it’s a message that people who think they are trapped in their cars should keep hearing from us. And if we all learn to ride a little bit smarter, it is more fun. Here’s to less road rage and more peaceful pedaling.
(To participate in a free class on Sharing the Road, call Bicycling for Louisville at 582-1814, www.bicyclingforlouisville.org.)
Amanda Fuller, Highlands
Bark Up Both Sides
I think it is fair that there are two sides to every story, so I wonder how much of this spirit went into Jonathan Meador’s story “Dog days of Louisville” (LEO Weekly, Oct. 14). Meador notes alleged details from various people making claims that Louisville Metro Animal Services acted unlawfully and unfairly. The response that Meador wrote from Director Meloche? He couldn’t be reached, but the “publicly known details of his sordid past speak as loudly for him as does the current state of the organization.”
I am assuming that this article is not so much news as opinion. I would recommend that Meador offer more of the argument and facts of each case rather than his style of descriptive opinion. “Swirling near the gaping maw of this turgid municipal vortex …”? Sounds more like an exercise in creative writing instead of a search for the facts. Have the number of lawsuits brought against Metro Services increased under the new ordinance? How much animal enforcement occurred before the current ordinance? I would recommend that anyone who believes his rights were abridged should sue. But simply bringing suit does not demonstrate violation of rights. I think we all would agree that some lawsuits are frivolous and some have merit — just like there are good and bad animal owners. I would recommend that Meador report the results after both sides make their point in open court instead of trying the cases based upon the complaints only and the opinions of those who oppose the ordinance. At least that would offer the appearance of balanced journalism.
Ron Carel, Jeffersontown
Golden Shower Mayor
It’s ironic that the previous animal ordinance was revised to allegedly protect the public against dangerous dogs, yet the number of dog bites actually INCREASED since the ordinance was put in place. At the same time, the new law offers no protection from dangerous dogcatchers, who have become the new pit bulls terrorizing Jefferson County residents.
It’s impossible to tally up the loss of fines and fees extorted from folks who had their pets seized illegally, the wages lost going to court over baseless charges, the damage that animals have suffered from what they’re made to endure at LMAS, and the number of pets that have died either at the hands of LMAS staff, or as a result of diseases contracted at the shelter.
And to whom do we owe our debt of gratitude for this disdainful treatment, the endless violation of civil liberties, a pile of dead animals and yet more lawsuits filed against Metro? Jerry Abramson.
I only hope that when they erect the inevitable statue to him, it has a water feature with a large dog perpetually lifting its leg on his pants.
Barbara Haines, Middletown
I was lucky enough to intercept this secret memo sent from Metro Councilman Jim King to his daughter, Judge Katie King, and decode it with my B.S. decoder ring.
“Judge Katie, I’m going to need the gift (money) that I gave you to buy your judgeship back ASAP. I need the gift (money) to buy the mayorship, or whatever it’s called, for myself. And if all goes well, Pinky, soon we’ll take over the world! —The Brain
“P.S.: I e-mailed everybody in the city and told them to like you.”
Jim Andrew, Fern Creek
Clear the Bill
As sponsors of pre-filed legislation (Bill Request 98) whose purpose is to prohibit Kentucky from executing someone who is severely mentally ill when he or she commits a capital murder, we are compelled to respond to comments made by the elected commonwealth attorney of Fayette County, Ray Larson, during his recent appearance on the KET “Kentucky Tonight” program.
During the program, Larson held up a copy of BR 98 and told viewers that the most significant part of our bill was that it would allow for the re-litigation of this issue for everyone on death row. This is not true. The elected Fayette attorney should be more cautious when speaking about legislation that deals with the taking of a human life.
It is clear about when it becomes effective and to whom it applies. Section 3, subsection (3) of the text states: “The provisions of KRS 532.135 and 532.140 shall apply only to trials commenced after July 13, 1990, for seriously mentally retarded offenders and after the effective date of this Act, for severely mentally ill offenders.”
The “effective date of this Act, for severely mentally ill offenders” means that, if the bill passes and becomes law, this new law would then apply only to those whose trials begin 90 days after the end of the legislative session of 2010. It does not apply to other cases. Everyone must be held accountable for their crimes. But just as for those who are mentally retarded, those who are severely mentally ill have mental functioning impairments that limit the degree of their culpability. Our bill does not remove any punishment that a prosecutor might seek except for the death penalty, and even then only if a judge makes such a pre-trial determination.
Killing those who are severely mentally ill has no place in our commonwealth.
State Reps. David Floyd & Darryl Owens, Frankfort, Ky.