Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 173 Editor's Choice: 4
-
The marriage
[Read the article: Pretty heads will roll ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Henry VIII almost certainly did fear for his soul after marrying his brother's (older) widow in a shotgun political arrangement between his scary, dominating dad and the powerful King of Spain
Actually, Henry VII was dead and Henry VIII was king when he decided, to the surprise of many, to go ahead with the marriage to Katherine of Aragon. She had almost given up hope that it would ever happen. He could have sent her back to Spain, or, in fact, kept her in perpetual penury hanging around some drafty castle or manor house as his brother's widow because technically, as his brother's widow, she was in his 'care'....although her father probably wouldn't have been happy about that, he would have insisted that she be sent home, so he could try to marry her off.
Many of his advisors were pushing for other alliances and were not pleased with the marriage. Whether he actually feared for his soul any time before the marriage failed to produce a living son and he saw Anne Boleyn, well, only Henry VIII will ever know.
-
@NotOrbitBoy
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I tend to agree with what Eileen said - but I've always believed thay are both politicians and in that case, it might be possible for some people to believe that they have both lied about different things, some of which might be more important to some people than they are to others. Personally, I just don't get that worked up about it, because, as I said, they are both politicians.
I realize you probably think that makes me cynical and evil. No. I'll tell you what it means. In November, instead of sitting home in a snit because 'my' candidate (which is actually neither of these candidates, the one I preferred is long gone) didn't get the nomination, or voting for McCain because 'my' candidate didn't get the nomination, I'll do what I need to do, which is pull the lever or push the button for the Democrat.
-
Amerigo and you examples of jury behavior
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is a case where your examples don't fit, and I assume what the person you were replying to was referring to - jury nullification. When you believe that the person committed the acts but either don't believe that they should be punished because you support their cause or you believe the government process is so corrupt that you vote not guilty anyway. However, unless you lie in jury selection, that's supposed to winnow these folks out.
For the people who are upset that some of her alleged co-conspirators testified against her for reduced sentences - happens all the time. They would have been asked on either direct, or cross, depending on whether the prosecution wanted to avoid having the defense bring it up first, whether they made a deal for the testimony. The defense would have accused them of perjury in return for the testimony - regardless of whether the prosecution objected and it was upheld, the jury would have heard it - unless the lawyer was brain dead. As Amerigo pointed out, it is then up to the jury to decide who they thought was telling the truth.
I think people just have a basic difference of opinion here. Some people believe some or all of the following (a) some actions will never be criminal because they support a cause some people believe in; (b) if someone claims the government railroaded someone, you were omniscient and they did, and don't dig any further, especially if you support the cause; (c) women are apparently not, at all, responsible for any criminal actions they take part in if they are young, reasonably attractive, support causes people like and can claim they were 'duped' by a man; and (d) if a jury renders a verdict you didn't like, even if you weren't there to see the evidence, they were stupid.
-
The spouses and what they say does matter to people
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a general statement, so please don't jump all over me with the "it's supposed to be different this time" stuff. Although Bill Clinton is obviously something different than we have had before, nobody has had a former President as a prospective first spouse before, but the prospective spouses and what they say are always an issue during the campaign and if the candidate is actually elected.
People either hated or loved Hillary when Bill Clinton first ran. How do you think she became so 'polarizing' in the first place? Everything she said was scrutinized. I also remember when Betty Ford campaigned for the ERA. That didn't go over too well - many people either thought she was just wrong on the issue, or that she should shut up and let her husband run the country. In 2004, I had a massive argument with my mother about Teresa Heinz Kerry, my mother couldn't stand her. I pointed out that wasn't a good reason to vote against the candidate. Eventually, she agreed, but people didn't like Kerry's wife and she was portrayed particularly unfavorably to Laura Bush.
This stuff has been going on long before Obama ever declared his candidacy. I'm not sure how any of it is specifically designed to attack either of the Obamas. The spouses always seem to be fair game and people do react to them.