LETTERS TO THE EDITOR|
Memorial Day editorial dishonored fallen soldiers
To The Daily: Your May 28 editorial was right to urge remembrance of our fallen service members; nevertheless, your description of the war as “the ultimate failure of politics” is ludicrous. In what manner would you have had the United Sates and Saddam Hussein’s regime “settle their differences?” What common ground ought we to find with a tyrannical mass-murderer who actively opposes the interests of this country?
Even more offensively, you insinuate that the same sort of logic ought to apply to al-Qaida, which you innocuously describe as an “international organization” as if it were the Rotary Club. There will never be peaceful accommodation with those whose stated goal is the destruction of this country.
While there are legitimate arguments against the war in Iraq, suggesting that opposition to America’s enemies represents an “ultimate failure” of policy dishonors the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers, and makes your call to avoid partisanship during the holiday blatant hypocrisy. Memorial Day, indeed.
Elections are not best way to choose judges
To The Daily: Tempting as it is to join the ongoing discussion about the “dim bulb” currently flickering in the White House, I would like instead to comment on your editorial in the May 27 paper concerning the election of judges. Your piece rightly described some of the problems with the present system, then, disappointingly, suggested that it not be changed. I find this to be terribly shortsighted.
Few of us are involved directly with the courts at any given point in time. The very nature of their work demands a certain amount of secrecy and respect for privacy. The average citizen knows little about how any particular lawyer or judge may conduct him or herself daily. How, then, can we be expected to make informed choices about who is best qualified to serve at the various judicial levels of our state? Is it to be on the basis of which candidate provides the best television ads; or spends the most money; or seems to be least beholden to special interests; or has the most honest face? Your editorial would imply that this is the best we can hope for.
You dismissed the idea of a blue-ribbon panel to recommend judicial appointments as unworkable. Do you honestly think it is any more so than the current system? You then added insult to injury by implying that five or six persons of intelligence and integrity cannot be found in all of Alabama to fill such a panel. Surely you are not serious.
The current practice of electing judges at any level is hardly conducive to the best judicial system our citizens can hope for, or deserve. Surely there is enough intelligence in our state to come up with a better way.