Just restrict gun rights of Dems, not GOP
Most crimes and murders are committed in the cities of America and by the constituency of the Democratic Party. The five most dangerous cities for crimes in 2011 were 1. Flint, Mich.; 2. Detroit; 3. St. Louis; 4. Oakland; and 5. Memphis, Tenn. These are FBI statistics measured as to numbers of violent crimes committed per 1,000 residents.
In terms of dangerous cities, Oakland ranked 15th for murders, although it is 44th for population. For murders alone, New Orleans led the nation per capita, and Detroit ranked second. Note that all these cities are governed by Democrats, and all predominantly have Democratic voters.
But lately, Democrats want law-abiding Republicans to give up their guns. A better idea, and one sure to solve most of the nation's crime problems, is for only Democrats to be restricted from possessing guns and ammo. They alone have proved over many years that they are incapable of living peacefully with anyone.
Other factors, not gun control, cut murder rate
Your article that "Good Guys and Guns Don't Mix" manages to insult almost half the country, because almost half the country owns guns. You then choose a couple of incidents and decide that we should make national policy based on this. This is irresponsible.
If you think that more gun control will help, just look at Mexico. Millions of people have fled Mexico to live in this country, so it is the best comparison country with strict gun control. I don't think that anyone would like to have a murder and crime rate like Mexico. People are even afraid to travel there for a visit these days.
There are other differences between our countries, but that it the point. It is the other things that reduce the murder rate, not gun control.
Praying for our schools is most powerful action
The terrible December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., has reminded us all of how precious and vulnerable our children are. Individually and as a nation, we now strive to take action to protect our children.
For many the answer lies in some aspect of weaponry. More? Less? Some bemoan the lack of organized prayer at school. They seem to have forgotten that there is nothing that prevents citizens from praying at home and in our places of worship for the protection of our schools. And prayer is effective.
Prayer actually is the strongest defense there is against violence. Each of us can take this event as a rallying cry for prayer. Individually wrap your neighborhood school, or even your whole school district in daily prayer. Even better, become a part of a prayer circle -- within your faith community or in an interdenominational organization -- and together embrace our schools daily, hourly in prayer.
This is the most powerful action we can take, and it is available to each and every one of us.
Kaarin E. Brown
President then, now on debt ceiling issue
Mr. Obama, in a cogent speech given on the floor of the Senate on March 16, 2006, said, "I rise today to talk about America's debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies.
"Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. ... That is money that we have to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next five years, ... the president's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
—... It took ... 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in ... five years. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. ... Americans deserve better. ..."
For the full text go to www.matchdoctor.com/blog_132314/Senator_Barack_Obama_March_16_2006.html
Readers being misled about CalPERS
The Times writer Daniel Borenstein continues to attack public safety pensions and specifically CalPERS. In his Jan. 11 editorial, he completely misleads readers of your newspaper and refuses to get his facts straight.
If a reader were to only read his attacking prose, one would surely believe that the California Public Employees' Retirement System was in the wrong when it comes to the management of one of the nation's largest public pension organizations.
I would expect that the management of your newspaper would not just put your trust in his misleading and obviously wrong interpretations of CalPERS and its job performance. To read the truth about his latest attack, here is a link to the truth as found on the CalPERS web site: http://www.calpersresponds.com/issues.php/crusade-misleads-readers.
There's better reading than Sowell, Fillmore
I so miss the eloquence of Lanning Middings. His style is identifiable, as his command of alliteration, i.e. " perspicacious political pundit" or "enthusiastically embraced and energetically promulgated." Hyperbole still haunts his prose, i.e. "bottomless vortex of socialistic destruction."
Well-crafted sarcasm continues to evade him. Why doesn't Lanny praise George Will, a far better conservative writer, or David Brooks who reads more and writes better than most of us -- even if we don't always agree with him?
Middings praises T. Sowell, who is no powerhouse expository writer himself. And he extols the Mallard Fillmore political comic strip as a textbook of advice for the GOP. The GOP did sink to using Sowell's take on things, which are promulgated in the Fillmore cartoons, and look where it got them? No learning in evidence here.
Middings and Sowell are snarky and shallow, as well as jingoistic. They're better than the gym to get my heart rate up. Fillmore can be as funny, as are Doonesbury or Nonsequitor, but it's not up to the best political cartoons the Times runs.
Fillmore no more political than Doonesbury is
With regard to a Jan. 16 letter written by Stephen Whitney objecting to the Mallard Fillmore cartoon being on the comics page instead of the opinion or editorial page, I say that he must never raise his eyes to the "cartoon" directly above it!
Doonesbury has, since its inception, been regarded as a "political" cartoon and in fact for a long time was not on the comics page at all, but was found on the games & puzzles page of the paper. If we conservatives can read Doonesbury with a sense of humor, I think that liberals can do the same with Mallard Fillmore. Lighten up, Mr. Whitney!