Columnist is beyond a leftist and has got to go
Regarding “Another fake deficit hawk swoops in from the GOP” (Opinion, June 2): What on earth does Paul Krugman add to the AJC opinion page? I regularly read all of your columnists (left and right). He fits neither category. I assume he is a leftist, but even that label can’t describe him. He must go.
Rohlf A. Shaffer, Kennesaw
Save Our Climate Act is necessary response
“Arctic gas levels raise concerns” (News, June 1) was the headline and “temperatures and sea levels soon to follow,” the unspoken follow-up. The sooner we take steps such as a price on the emission of fossil carbon, the sooner we can make the changes to shrink our concerns. No one knows what will best enable us to avoid massive climate shifts, but the market would bring that technology if a fair fee were assessed on fossil fuels at the source. This fee could be refunded to citizens to facilitate needed changes.
The Save our Climate Act lays out clear mechanisms to do this and to address our concerns. It is the healthy and necessary response.
Peter Peteet, Atlanta
Hoover, Bush must be remembered by voters
Businessmen are rarely elected president — for good reason. Government run like a business is destined to fail. Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush were two businessmen who made it to the Oval Office. Hoover gave us the Great Depression and Bush left us with the Great Recession.
We can only hope American voters remember history this November so we don’t make those mistakes again.
Sybil Thomas, Whitesburg
Political debate has no bearing on actions
Thank you for publishing Randall C. Bailey’s proof that the current definition of marriage is radically different from the Bible’s (“Let’s evolve on gay marriage,” Opinion, June 1). This convincingly undermined Bryant Wright’s position (“Redefining marriage wrong,” Opinion, June 1). But before Baptists (or other religious groups) get up in arms, remember that the political debate about gay marriage has no bearing on what religious organizations do.
The political debate is about whether it is unfair to withhold the significant legal rights and benefits that the government confers to two married adults from two men or two women who want to marry. Here, the arguments that it is unfair are compelling.
But once the government finally recognizes this fact, religions will remain free to define marriage however they want, and will not be required to marry homosexuals.
The government does not get to determine any religious group’s definition of marriage — and vice versa.
Eddy Nahmias, Decatur
