READERS WRITE

Responses to “Time to put brakes on superspeeders,” @issue, March 6.

Enforce laws already on the books

While I acknowledge that any activity resulting in loss of life is tragic, I hardly see that a law raising punishment for “superspeeders” is worth the attention it’s receiving. Bob Dallas cited the loss of at least 384 lives last year to explain why the law was needed but this was out of millions of cars. If we calculated a percentage based on just 5 million cars, an extremely conservative number, the percentage of incidents would be .0000768 percent of drivers per year are killed as a result of this conduct. I don’t see this as an issue that warrants immediate legislative action.

Laws already on the books give law enforcement the ability to charge an individual with reckless driving, which is exactly what superspeeding is. Instead of spending the resources creating a new law, why not enforce the laws already on the books and raise penalties for speeding in excess of certain limits?

TIM DOWNING

Holly Springs

Take away the cars

Bob Dallas is absolutely right that we need to do something about reckless speeders who murder a Georgian at least once a day. However, paying a few bucks or having a driver’s license taken away won’t have any affect on people who obviously don’t care about their actions. The only way to stop these killers is to not give them a second chance. Take the cars.

Dr. SHELDON B. COHEN

Atlanta

GOP needs to stay the course

For the president to tout health care, education and energy reform as cures for our economic crisis is a non-sequitur, an illogical solution from the facts of overleveraged banks and homeowners, says Charles Krauthammer (“Crisis used for real agenda,” @issue, March 6).

But who among us thinks that with our banking crisis solved, the challenges we face disappear? As the president says, for too long we have put short-term profit before long-term prosperity. The president’s agenda is a prudent recipe for long-term prosperity. But Krauthammer and most Republicans refuse to contemplate the long term.

When the children and parents of middle America were dying in war, they “stayed the course.” Where’s that determination and can-do spirit when the home front is besieged?

GREG ROSS

Canton

Bookman wrong on assisted suicide

I practically worship Jay Bookman and read almost every column he writes. I was shocked to discover that I totally disagree with him about assisted suicide (“Suicide: Time to stop the whispers, speak loudly,” @issue, March 5). I cannot imagine that John Celmer, who was very disfigured by removal of part of his jaw and did not want to live in that horrible condition, should be forced to live. Just because death was not imminent and he had the possibility of living years longer in a physical state that he found unbearable should not keep him from making his own decision. In fact, we all know the cancer could come back, entailing many more surgeries. Even worse, the fact that he would be condemned to living without a functional mouth would be a horrible existence. And not no, but hell no, a person in that condition does not have to be mentally ill to want to end his life.

WINSTON JOHNSON

Atlanta

Senate bill a solution in search of a problem

Our Georgia Senate has taken even more steps to solve a non-existent problem —- voter fraud. While the bill sponsor admits to having no data to back up his claim, he nonetheless believes that voter fraud occurs by the hundreds. Now the Georgia Senate says we need a passport, driver’s license or birth certificate to prove we are citizens. Strange how these so-called requirements also tend to discourage the poor and elderly, i.e. non-Republican voters. I know, why not make voting just like boarding a plane, to cut down the also non-existent problem of voter violence. We could be screened, remove our shoes and have a required Republican/evangelical church membership with gun-permit boarding pass to vote.

DAVID BICE

Kennesaw

Supporter fails to address EFCA legislation

It is significant that Richard Parker, in his opinion column supporting the badly misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA), does not address the proposed legislation (“Better salaries means more purchases,” @issue, March 5). Could this be because he realizes that people value the secret ballot in union elections that he wants taken away? Instead he talks mainly about how wonderful unions are. Are these the same kinds of unions that have helped to put the U.S. auto industry where it is? By contrast, Thomas J. Donohue’s criticism of the EFCA (“When government steps in, employer loses,” @issue, March 5) directly addresses another problem with the proposed bill, required federal arbitration. Parker claims “60 percent of Americans support” the EFCA. Not likely, if the question asked explains what the legislation does. He understands this, so does not mention it. Beware those trying to sell something who will not talk about the product.

WINSTON WEINMANN

Atlanta