Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 220 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Speaking and endorsing the candidate
[Read the article: Clinton die-hards want floor vote at convention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not arguing against having people who supported her speak, theoretically. However, no convention these days will allow someone to speak if they haven't actually endorsed the nominee. That's the root of the Clinton - Casey family issues. Sen Bob Casey's father wanted to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention and he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, in fact, he went out of his way to say he wouldn't and he wanted to speak at the convention and make it clear he wouldn't endorse him - and he was refused permission. The Casey family maintains, to this day, that it was because the Governor opposed abortion, but that wasn't the issue. He was going to get up there and refuse to endorse the nominee.
I realize that conventions didn't used to be this way, that there used to be actual nomination ballots and floor fights, etc., but there aren't anymore unless there isn't a clear winner. Senator Clinton made a decision not to go to take her candidacy to the convention although there were cases where people with less support had (Ted Kennedy). I believe her supporters should respect their own candidate's wishes, at least in this matter. Not, necessarily in the way they vote in November if that isn't what they want to do that's their business. But the candidate made a decision. They should respect it - or they don't actually respect her.
If there are people who want to speak who supported her who can meet the requirements of the current convention - that they have to in some way, shape or form, endorse the nominee, then more power to them. But I don't see any point in submitting her name for a floor vote.
-
I just changed my mind
[Read the article: Clinton die-hards want floor vote at convention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I still don't think it will really serve any useful purpose, and it goes against everything they do at conventions over the last few decades, but, after seeing the comment from bernbart about the protesters being put in cages outside the convention, I figure, what the hell, let them speak and have the roll call. It will annoy bernbart.
Bernbart, should they get a warrant before locking them up, or is your permission all that's necessary?
-
Enfolder, if your concience doesn't allow you to do your job
[Read the article: Bush: Birth control = abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Then you aren't, well, doing your job.
The article link from the Times makes it fairly clear what they mean. There is this statement, "Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it." That seems clear enough to me, that there would be people involved in dispensing or providing the emergency contraceptives are going to be allowed to refuse to do it.
If a rape victim asks you, as a physician or a pharmacist at the state hospital for the emergency contraceptives, this is your job: as the physician, to give her the prescription and as the pharmicist, to fill it. If you cannot, by conscience, do that, then you turn around and find someone who can. Do you really believe that's what we are talking about here? We're talking about simply saying no and walking away, leaving this person without the prescription and medication she is legally entitled to have. Or, on top of that, trying to talk a rape victim out of taking emergency contraception. Wonderful.
I always figured after Roe was gone Griswold was next, and the reaction to one of the recent Supreme Court appointments reminded me of that, clearly. Oddly, while Roberts danced around what he thought about Roe by calling it "settled law" (meaning he thought it was wrongly decided, he is personally against abortion, but he had to say something to make the Democrats happy and it would become not settled law as soon as he got on the bench), he said he didn't have a problem with Griswald, he thought it was rightly decided. That pissed a significant number of Republicans off because as soon as Roe is gone they are going straight for Griswold...and he didn't say what a good Republican should say, which is the settled law thing. He said "rightly decided". Could have been lying, but why bother?
-
He's just doing what companies do when they look for leads
[Read the article: Barack Obama's super marketing machine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I help my clients run their direct mail campaigns. We help them track, manage and analyze the results, we don't develop the lists for them, however, we work closely with the company that does. The list provider is doing nothing but what Obama is doing - and they've been doing it longer. This is data mining - but with information people have given up willingly - at least, it's supposed to be willingly, they shouldn't have access to any info from sites or companies that say they won't share your data unless you agree and if you say no, they shouldn't release it.
At my last company we used geodemo coding to make sure store matches for product tests were balanced and that is the basis of those neighborhood splits he's using - this has been available for a long time. Companies get matches on what magazines, products people buy all the time for lists.
However, one thing I will say, everything my clients do involves an easy way of getting off the lists. I couldn't get the Obama campaign to stop calling me during the primaries, every month, they called, I asked them not to call again and they called. So, I understand how it works, but it doesn't work the way it is supposed to because once you are on, there may not be a way to get off the list.