‘Wait and see’ betrays a lack of prudence
Re: May 19 article on climate change “Legislative action merely a harmful political power grab.”
Amy Ridenour’s opinion of scientists’ findings on the facts and causes or even existence of, global warming, seem to mirror those of many who have decided that modern man should not be held responsible for what — and can we please agree on this — at least a “majority” of the world’s scientists believe is a reality that requires immediate action to try to mitigate.
My question to Ridenour and others who seem to require a 100 percent consensus on the issue, before taking it seriously, is hypothetical:
If someone was diagnosed with a new and likely fatal disease and a vast majority of doctors’ opinions were to follow a very expensive course of action that might save him, but a few doctors’ diagnoses, a slim minority, thought the symptoms were not life-threatening and recommended bed rest and a “wait and see” attitude, which prescription would seem most prudent to follow?
How does the logic of this differ from that which we should apply to any problem objective observation may discover?
Make penalty hurt for racist slur
Re: the May 20 article, “Slur-using police commissioner resigns after calls for his ouster.”
Robert Copeland, the New Hampshire police commissioner who resigned following a reprehensible racial slur directed at the president of the U.S., should suffer much more severe consequences than simply being allowed to resign his position. Considering that L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was fined $2.5 million for a comment made in the privacy of his own home without the use of an obscenity, Copeland should at least lose some percentage of his pension for his despicable comments made in public that also included an obscene expletive.
Semiretired, Oro Valley
Let’s assume parents, voters can think freely
Re: May 20 guest opinion “Parents cannot be trusted to choose best education for their kids.”
If one is a freethinker, do free thoughts sometimes lead to freely chosen decisions? And may some of those decisions differ, even radically, from the decisions of another freethinker?
I would have thought — freely — that Free Thought Arizona and its spokesman Gil Shapiro would applaud the decisions presumably arrived at freely and with due deliberation by parents who have chosen other forms of education than those implicitly approved by Free Thought Arizona. Or is the expression of free thought in publicly observable action commendable only if it does not contradict the worldview of Free Thought Arizona?
Having said all this, I mostly agree with Shapiro when he urges “school boards and government officials to overturn statutes that allow parents unrestricted control over their children’s education.”
And I remind the reader that we the people have freely elected school boards, legislators, governors and superintendents of public instruction who have made the rules with which we’re living.
Retired clergy, Tucson
Stimulating morning — and coffee, too
Early each day I look forward to a fresh cup of coffee, sitting in the morning sun and reading the Star. I really don’t care if the Star is left- or right-leaning. It presents local issues very well and I enjoy all the columnists, even Fitz.
The editorial page does provoke the readers to consider a variety of viewpoints. The academic in me enjoys George Will for his vocabulary usage and I appreciate various issues that Leonard Pitts writes about, such as his column of May 15.