Time for US troops to come home

Re: the Feb. 25 article “Hagel asks to shrink military, retool it.”

I am more than ready for all of our troops to come home. We have been in the Middle East for far too long and nothing is — or is likely — to be accomplished by having them there any longer.

I haven’t heard anything recently that makes me feel that any more American troops should be sent into any other country — at least not any time soon. Having said that, things change in a heartbeat, and should the need arise for American troops, I would like to know that within a very short period of time we can put so many boots on soil that it will cause an earthquake two countries over.

Isn’t that what Teddy Roosevelt meant by “speak softly and carry a big stick?” I don’t think we need to be whittling our stick down.

Robin Gugliotta

Lending administrator, Tucson

Gov. Brewer enjoys attention, controversy

Re: the Feb. 24 article “Pressure grows for veto of SB 1062.”

I can’t help but think that Gov. Brewer has always known she will veto this bill. What does it mean that she says she needs to “wrap her hands around it?”

In my view, she could have urged the Legislature not to pass it in the first place. She’s anything but stupid and has learned that this Legislature does things that get national attention on the state and especially on her office, as protests reach a feverish pitch and thousands of people are begging her to veto.

She will veto it, I think, but apparently wants to drag it out as long as possible so she can look like a bigger hero . It is too bad she seems to enjoy controversy and attention more than she enjoys doing the right things for the people of Arizona in the first place.

Kathy Bayer

Small-business owner, Tucson

Stop shoving issue

of gay marriage at us

Re: the Feb. 26 article “CNN reveals real Al Melvin, unfortunately for him.”

SB 1062 was a naive attempt by Arizona legislators to counteract what they see occurring across the country now, with federal judges striking down state laws that declare marriage is between a man and a woman, the way it has been for thousands of years and which fosters a nuclear family with children. These judges are invalidating the will of the people. The U.S. Supreme Court did NOT rule that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

They ruled that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional related to receiving federal benefits. They sent back to the state of California its gay marriage law, for the state to determine! Many of us are tired of having the gay marriage issue shoved down our throat and being called bigots for adhering to our religious beliefs.

David Burford

Retired, Tucson

Headline showed bias

Re: the Feb. 26 article “SB 1062 furor clouds bill’s limited scope .”

The headline on this article sounds at least slightly opinionated. First, it’s the job of a reputable news organization to limit opinion as much as possible to the editorial page (which this paper occasionally fails to do).

Secondly, it is impossible to objectively predict the “scope” of any bill not yet a law. Thirdly, this bill looks to affect religious rights and civil rights to varying degrees, which could amount to a huge “scope,” with protracted legal battles and boycotts.

Whether the present fuss and furor is clouding anything or pointing out the seriousness of the situation is not a matter of news, but a matter of opinion!

Hollis Toal

Retired, Tucson

Fact vs. theory in climate change debate

Re: the Feb. 21 column “The myth of global warming’s ‘settled science.’ ”

Charles Krauthammer says global warming is not settled science. Science deals with facts and theories. It is a fact that average global temperatures over years have risen. It is a theory that a major cause is an increase in atmospheric CO2 deposits. It is a theory that such deposit increases do not bode well for humans in the not-yet-experienced future.

Krauthammer agrees such deposits do not bode well but apparently would do nothing about it because scientists who theorize about consequences are, in his words, just “white-coated propagandists,” i.e., can’t possibly know the causation they suggest.

He would apparently prefer silence about the risks he acknowledges such deposits create. Which better serves the public? Theoretical descriptions of possible dangers or silence to avoid being called a “propagandist?”

Charles Tillinghast

Retired lawyer, Tucson