Advertisement
Supported by
letters
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
To the Editor:
Re “A Cynical Low for the Democratic Party” (editorial, Aug. 4):
Cynical, indeed! As a moderate Democrat, I find it appalling that Democratic campaign organizations are contributing money to finance the primary campaigns of ultra-right, pro-Trump supporters and election deniers.
Money contributed to these Democratic organizations should go to candidates promoting free and fair elections, and who work to combat lies, racism and antisemitism. I want campaign dollars to support and guarantee that women have the right to make decisions about their own health and welfare.
To learn now that our campaign dollars are going to promote extreme right-wingers and Trumpers makes me wonder: Why would I ever consider making contributions again to Democratic groups if they give money to the campaigns of the very people I wish to see defeated?
Robert D. Greenberg
Bethesda, Md.
To the Editor:
I would beg to differ with the editorial board’s view that the Democratic Party’s support for Trump Republican proponents of the Big Lie is a “cynical low.” Your argument is that Democrats, who claim to stand up for the truth, should not be supporting the deniers of truth, and, furthermore, that theirs is a “repugnant and risky strategy.”
But can it also be considered a deft political strategy and worth the risk? It is not an illegal action, and it is probably not immoral, but just plain smart politics.
Raymond Comeau
Belmont, Mass.
To the Editor:
While Democrats’ efforts to promote far-right candidates, whom they perceive to be easier targets in the general election, may succeed in swaying a few Republican primary voters, they pose the greater risk of alienating large swaths of independent voters like me who simply want politicians to act with a modicum of honesty and integrity.
Especially in battleground states like Michigan, where independents have the power to decide races with far-reaching consequences, Democrats would be wise to build the moral high ground on election integrity rather than actively undermining it.
John Zainea
Ann Arbor, Mich.
To the Editor:
Let’s be cleareyed. There no longer is such a thing as a moderate Republican politician. I, too, detest Democratic donations going to nominate election deniers. But Republicans who didn’t get Donald Trump’s endorsement by and large deny climate change, support abortion bans and favor a tax system that tilts toward corporations and the wealthy.
Don’t shift the political landscape even farther in that direction by describing those right-wing Republicans as “moderate.” They aren’t.
Ken Eudy
Raleigh, N.C.
The writer is a retired senior adviser to Gov. Roy Cooper.
To the Editor:
Re “A Proposal for School Covid Policies This Year,” by Joseph G. Allen (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 6):
While I appreciate the critical thought and expertise that Dr. Allen brought to the discourse on Covid policies in our education system, I’m concerned that the scope too frequently narrowed on children’s resilience.
Children may be far less likely to be hospitalized or experience severe symptoms, but they are just as likely to pass symptoms to adult family members who could be at high risk.
The guidelines from Britain’s education system referred to in the article suggest that children go to school unmasked if symptoms are only minor (a runny nose, a slight cough, etc). Those children may easily pass those minor symptoms to their classmates, who may just as easily pass them to an adult (a family member or staff at the school) who experiences Covid more seriously.
Yes, the alternative is damaging: children missing school. But our educators and families could pay a larger price if we let children pass it among themselves and to adults.
Alexandra Davis
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
Joseph G. Allen says he is writing in these capacities: “As a public health scientist. As someone who has spent nearly 20 years doing risk assessments of indoor environmental hazards. As a dad of three school-age kids, and an uncle to 15.”
But Covid policy in schools affects people schoolchildren interact with outside school. This includes the old and immunocomromised adults who cannot take Paxlovid because it interacts with their other medicines.
Writing as an old person, a liberal and a bioethicist, I wonder why a public health expert thinks “the overriding goal for the next school year should be to maximize time in the classroom and make school look and feel much like it did before the pandemic started,” rather than recognizing that the overriding goal of any Covid policy should be to save lives.
Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Providence, R.I.
To the Editor:
Re “For Children of War, a Time for Play” (news article and photo essay, Aug. 8):
As children, their families and teachers get excited about the new school year throughout the world, it is imperative to continue to publicize the dire education needs of Ukrainian children.
In addition to the physical destruction of school infrastructure, there are shortages of supplies from laptops to textbooks. Some teachers have had to physically defend their schools as Russian invaders entered.
Professors have been giving lectures from the front lines. Others have been teaching in person from shelters, where air-raid sirens wail. The dedication of the teachers in wartime is heroic.
Students are the future of any country. The education of students in Ukraine, as had been taking place before the invasion in February, is essential to the rebuilding of the country. They deserve our support. As do their teachers.
Anna Nagurney
Amherst, Mass.
The writer is the Eugene M. Isenberg chair in integrative studies, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and co-chair of the board of directors of the Kyiv School of Economics.
To the Editor:
Re “Defying the Supreme Court,” by David Leonhardt (The Morning newsletter, Aug. 4):
Those, like me, rejoicing over the overwhelming rejection in Kansas of a measure to allow banning abortion there ought to curb their enthusiasm. The outcome of that referendum could exemplify the adage “Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.”
That Kansas voters refused to permit their legislature to roll back women’s reproductive rights plays into the narrative of the Supreme Court’s rationale in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, in which the justices reasoned that decisions on women’s control over their own bodies should be left to each of the states.
By demonstrating that this tenet can work to protect individual rights, the Kansas vote could bolster the states’ rights argument underlying the Dobbs decision. It may be invoked to justify the inclination of the supermajority radicals on the court to reconsider decisions involving contraception and same-sex marriage, among other matters, as advocated in the Dobbs case by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Marshall H. Tanick
Minneapolis
The writer is a lawyer.
Advertisement
