Is it principle or agenda?
Regarding “In congressional races, voter ‘choice’ is a farce” (Opinion, Nov. 12, 2014), Jay Bookman bemoans the principle of gerrymandering as eliminating self-government. As a conservative, I would agree with his thought on that principle, if it was genuine. But put in historical context, even with current political events, this seems disingenuous. He is bemoaning it because the result currently disfavors his liberal agenda. To his credit, he mentions in one short paragraph that Democrats have also gerrymandered. After the elections in 2000, they gerrymandered things so ridiculously that there was one voting district that snaked almost one-third of the way across the state with about a 10-mile width — far more contrived than they are now. Where was his outcry then? He was mum. Why? The results were in his agenda’s favor at that time. It is only when the tables turn that we hear the outcry.
Now Barrack Obama is threatening to unilaterally decide the issue of illegal immigration, taking the issue away from voters and their elected representatives — and doing so with powers not enumerated in the Constitution. This is an even more dangerous, unchecked power shift away from self-government. Where is the outcry? Bookman is mum once again, because of the agenda it favors at the moment. What he fails to see now is the damage such unchecked powers will eventually produce, whether a more extreme liberal president misuses that power or if a more conservative one eventually does. And he will continue to ignore the danger now, because genuinely his agenda trumps principle.
DAVID R. BOAG, FAYETTEVILLE
Beware unchecked carbon emissions
I was impressed by the data put out by the writer who said global warming is not caused by humans (“Climate change not human-caused,” Readers Write, Nov. 6). He also said there is no warming in spite of the world putting out record amounts of carbon emissions. I just hope the writer is around 30 years from now to see how things worked out.
PHIL DAVIS, POWDER SPRINGS
Saying ‘I do’ while Ga. says ‘you can’t’
After reading “More in U.S. saying ‘I don’t’” (Living Nov. 10), my first thought is that I would simply like the opportunity to say “I do” in the state of Georgia. My partner and I have shared our lives for 20 years, have moved all over the world together and have faced numerous legal obstacles and spent thousands as we tried to get legal rights for me to live in other countries when his work required it. Other gay and lesbian Georgians face worse financial penalties for various situations in their lives simply because gay marriage isn’t recognized in this state. It’s time for us to get on the right side of history and fix that.
DALE DUNCAN, ATLANTA
