LETTERS TO THE EDITOR|
Fails to see hat banís usefulness
To The Daily: Let me make sure I have this correct. Going by the justification of the hat banning policy, the Decatur City School Board and apparently Ms. Karen Gaertner (according to her letter) think that once gang members take off their hats, they are no longer gang members. Also taking off their hats apparently means they are less likely to get into trouble or do something dangerous. I never knew wearing a hat could be the cause of such activities.
Can someone please explain to me how security at the basketball games will be able to better identify gang members with everyoneís hat off? Is not the premise of this ban because security and school officials canít identify them with a lot of other adults wearing hats? So now that no one is wearing a hat, how is that any different? If a school official canít tell a balding grandpa is a gang member or not just because he is wearing a hat, then I guess I have a good reason for questioning that school officialís ability to be an educator.
So, what if gangs start wearing a certain type of clothing line? Are you going to ban people from wearing Nike, Reeboks, Wranglers or Levis? Heck for that matter, donít all gang members wear shirts, shoes and pants? I guess we need to ban the wearing of clothing all together. By the way, how does the school board plan on enforcing this hat ban when the spring sports season comes around? What about football season, when problems are more likely than inside a gymnasium? Sounds like the school board is just trying to sound like they are doing something instead of actually doing something, like maybe trying to reach out to these kids.
- Craig Stover
Political cartoons make reader angry
To The Daily: I cannot for the life of me understand why you continue to publish on a daily basis insulting, demeaning political cartoons about the president of the U.S. What does it accomplish? What political goal do you think it advances? Why do you think itís necessary for you to do it? How can you call for civility and bipartisanship in government when you attack regularly, on a personal basis, the leader of a party of roughly half of a nation? Why do you think it does not make a reader like me angry and wishing some kind of revenge?
Is it blind hatred, envy of power or position, or what? There has to be an editorial reason, but I canít see it. Is it a desire to obstruct or defeat any action the president might take by depicting him as small, stupid, mean-spirited and unqualified? Where will that get us as a nation?
Please stop. Differ with policy or programs if you choose — itís your paper. That would be fine. But stop the insults and smirks. Theyíre personal, and I, for one, take them that way.
- Franklin Johnson