BUSINESS
Response to “In a class of their own.” Business, April 17
I had to laugh when I read that security was cited as a primary reason for insisting on the use of corporate jets for executive travel. Five or six years ago, I was seated in the back row on a Delta flight from Dulles International Airport to Atlanta. Our takeoff was delayed for a few minutes while an elderly gentleman walked through the main cabin greeting his fellow passengers. I was surprised and thrilled to discover it was none other than former President Jimmy Carter, who shook every passenger’s hand. If a commercial jet is secure enough for a former president, surely it is secure enough for the chief executive officers of Coca-Cola and Home Depot.
Sara Cushing Weigle, Decatur
POLITICS
It’s the desperate who call Obama foes racists
With apologies to Samuel Johnson, charges of racism are now the last refuge of a scoundrel (“At times, sadly, race is a factor for Obama foes,” Readers write, Opinion, April 17).
Increasingly, when those on the left find themselves losing arguments on their merits, they fall back on talking points and accusing conservatives of being racist. This is designed to delegitimize opponents and divert attention from issues. It is profoundly dishonest and does our country a terrible disservice.
What motivates conservatives and tea party patriots (including former liberals like me) has nothing to do with race. I “disagree with him on (almost) all things,” though I know of no one who has “issues with his very existence.” I marched for civil rights and sat enraptured at Martin Luther King Jr.’s feet in the 1960s, and I am proud of it. I would enthusiastically support a qualified black president.
My opposition to President Barack Obama is based exclusively on his utter lack of qualification for the job, his statist world view, and evident hostility to everything that made this country unique and great.
Dr. Stephen D. Leonard, Sandy Springs
Big-government types, black or white, I’ll reject
This continuing theme of calling Barack Obama’s critics racist is getting old, and “At times, sadly, race is a factor for Obama foes” (Readers write, Opinion, April 17) is a typical example. The letter writer feels that it’s OK to disagree with Obama on some policies, but if you “can find no agreement with this president,” then you are “suffering from a severe form of racism.”
Oh, really? I’m a staunch Libertarian and have been for decades. If you know what that means, then you can easily imagine I have little (if any) agreement with the president on his policies. I see him as a typical big-government, high-taxing, redistribute-the-wealth socialist. The Republican presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. John McCain, would have been only slightly better.
Give me a true small-government presidential candidate, and regardless of that person’s gender, race or sexual preference, he or she will get my vote.
Please find some other drum to beat.
Mike Anthony, Duluth
Other info more telling than birth certificate
Every day, I read about another GOP presidential wannabe climbing aboard the birther train. How about the voters getting more relevant information about a candidate? For example, presentation of a candidate’s IQ test; SAT scores; ACT scores; the last eight years of state and federal tax filings; and a physical fitness assessment from an annual physical?
We should also require any candidate running for any political office to have a college degree from an accredited college or university. Those public documents would mean more to me than a birth certificate.
Juan Matute, Peachtree City
MILITARY
Fewer wars would mean fewer PTSD sufferers
As a U.S. Navy veteran and a retired career physician’s assistant, I wholeheartedly agree with the need to de-stigmatize post-traumatic stress disorder (“Stigma of PTSD is costing U.S. lives,” Opinion, April 20).
PTSD takes its toll in the form of chronic unemployment, substance abuse, family violence and suicide — yet its sufferers find it difficult to seek help.
There is one way to reduce the incidence of PTSD among future military generations. We must make certain that any war we undertake should be absolutely necessary for the defense of the nation or our allies. That simple criterion would have prevented our involvement in the two most divisive wars in my lifetime (Vietnam and Iraq), and PTSD would not be the giant problem it is today.
Fred Roberts, Decatur
MEDIA
Apply labels equally, or don’t use labels at all
After reading the Sunday AJC article, “Smaller state government in sight,” I feel compelled to point out an oversight (“Budget gap draws focus,” News, April 17).
Two state-focused think tanks analyze budget and public policy issues in this state: the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, established 20 years ago, and the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI), established in 2004. Both organizations describe themselves as independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations. Both organizations deal with the same data, yet policy proposals are usually polar opposites, reflecting different philosophies. GPPF proposes market-oriented approaches, limited government and lower taxes. The GBPI advocates “comprehensive tax reform should at least keep revenues where they are, or provide additional revenues to assist the state.”
Nearly every time the AJC quotes GPPF or its representatives, it includes a label such as “conservative” or “libertarian-leaning.” Yet even in the same article, organizations with opposing viewpoints are hardly ever labeled — not even “liberal.”
If the foundation has earned any label, it’s “fiscally conservative.” But in all fairness, other perspectives should be equally identified. Or should we label your organization “biased”?
Benita Dodd, Vice President, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
