04/05/04

Civil War wasn't about slavery:

April being Confederate History and Heritage Month in Alabama, I suggest those who might wonder and want to know the real truth about the Civil War read Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address (May 4, 1861). Lincoln says plainly what the war would be about and what it wouldn't be about.

Up front, Lincoln says he would only take action against those states in "rebellion" to collect his taxes. Second, he endorses an amendment that had just passed (May 2, 1861) which would have guaranteed slavery to those states desiring it, forever.

Needless to say, those states in rebellion were not interested - since it was not about slavery at all, but taxes.

R.Q. Taylor

Red Level

Treat Medicare as health care:

It is interesting to read about the concern politicians have for the solvency of Medicare. Part of the problem is that Medicare is looked at only as a budgetary item rather than a health-care program. If our legislators were truly interested in using money wisely and getting the best "bang for the buck," they would consider the following:

1. Allow physicians to truly compete in all aspects of health-care delivery, thereby reducing costs.

2. Look at the available data on the value of pharmaceuticals and realize that pharmaceuticals used appropriately reduce the cost of treating a disease even if the cost of the drug might be high.

3. Reduce the amount of regulation placed on doctors and health-care facilities.

4. Do means-testing so that those people who can afford to pay for their health care and drugs do so and those who are less fortunate financially get help.

5. Stop unfunded mandates.

Medicare has significantly more responsibility because of the advances in technology in the medical field. We are somewhat of a victim of our own success, but we must learn to adapt and stop trying to pin the blame on someone. We must decide whether we are truly interested in treating our senior citizens, or continue complaining that they are costing the system too much.

Allan R. Goldstein, M.D.

Montclair

Gays' `preferences' talk illogical:

Professor Mary Ann Glendon's recent commentary was fundamentally flawed and offensive.

She thinks "special preferences" conferred on married couples (but not gays) are due to the fact that they raise children. What of couples without children? Why are "special preferences" conferred upon them? Because marriage itself is of fundamental value. It is also wrong to conclude married gays would not have children, but this would be too horrid for Glendon to contemplate.

She then considers "distributive justice" for people who care for elderly or disabled relatives without tax or insurance benefits for their work. Thus, it is unfair to confer such benefits on gays. Glendon is a professor of law, but has she forgotten her biology as a result? Gay people come from families and also care for elderly and disabled loved ones.

Glendon believes recognizing gay marriage will damage children because they will not recognize that a husband and wife constitute a "normal" marriage. What of children in single-parent households, or of divorced parents? Should they be made to feel abnormal?

I disagree with Glendon's notion that gay marriage should be subject to cost/benefit analysis as though we were considering whether cattle should be grazed for an extra month. I don't believe costs would be high, but even if some were incurred, there are times when something is simply the right thing to do. Would she have us reinstitute slavery because of the economic catastrophe that ensued after abolition? Many parts of the South never recovered, but few lament the loss of slavery.

Glendon is a distinguished legal scholar, but her thoughts on gay marriage are illogical. Perhaps, we should all look in our mirrors for intolerance before considering "special preferences" for gays.

Stuart Goong

Auburn

Shula fumbles Croom award:

Dropping the Sylvester Croom Commitment to Excellence Award was a major fumble for University of Alabama football coach Mike Shula. Certainly, the display of utter contempt for one of such stature will require serious retribution.

In this vein, I can envision an official apology to coach Croom by the UA president and the head coach offered at the first Bama football game of the season - at Bryant-Croom Stadium.

Armond "Si" Simmons

Pell City

`Bingo for Books' is for losers:

Greyhound tracks' profits - their very existence, in fact - are dependent on losers; people who pay money to bet on running dogs and lose.

State Sen. Gerald Dial's "Bingo for Books" bill would entice a new group of losers to the greyhound tracks; people who would pay to play bingo and lose.

Don't Alabama's school students deserve better support than the quixotic results of gambling?

I suspect that Dial's bill has less to do with getting books for schoolchildren and more to do with helping the financially strapped greyhound tracks.

Alabama legislators need to direct their energies (and votes) toward establishing a practical and permanent K-12 education program that will meet the continuing and future needs.

Eleanor L. Jones

Cottondale

Sunday liquor bill comes up short:

The bill to allow some cities to legalize Sunday liquor sales actually does not go far enough. It should apply to all of Alabama. In fact, communities should not be given the chance to outlaw Sunday liquor sales or keep it illegal, but rather should be required to allow it if they allow alcoholic beverages at all.

Economics and tourism have been cited by the proponents of this bill. What has been overlooked is that this is also a religious freedom issue. Current laws that allow alcoholic beverages to be served and sold, but not on Sunday, force people to observe Sunday as the Lord's day. The law is based solely on this particular religious belief, one that is not shared by Jews, Muslims, atheists or even Christian Seventh Day Adventists. This law serves no practical, secular purpose.

Alcoholic beverages do need to be strictly monitored. Restrictions on alcohol to discourage drunken driving, encourage moderation and promote the safety of society can and should be enacted and enforced. Cities and counties could even be completely dry without violating religious freedom. Prohibition on all seven days of the week at least is religiously neutral.

What I have a problem with is the government establishing a day of the week as sacred and forcing people to abide by it. Violating the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom is something no government on the national, state or local level should be able to do.

Pat Dewees

Hoover