Liberals need to stop complaining
Liberals need to stop complaining
Concerning the Aug. 11 letter ["Agrees that paper has gone over to far right"] that Ed Cunniff wrote about The Gazette going to the far right: I find it offensive that any viewpoint that does not agree with you is considered far right. What does that mean?
I can remember a time (and it is still happening) that every possible problem in the world was George Bush's fault. Does that mean that the paper was then far left?
Perhaps you just don't have the nerve to admit that the present president, by the way voted the worst ever, is worthy of all the coverage he has been getting. No one likes the direction this country is going in, and you can't keep sugar-coating it to make a good speech maker look like he actually knows what he is doing.
I voted for George Bush, but I was not so stubborn and proud to admit that he had his problems and some of the negative points were well-founded. You can't hold on to something that is no longer there, Ed -- all the points that are made are justified and they have only begun to scratch the surface.
I am sure when they were bashing Bush all the time, you thought it was just fine and dandy. Well now the shoe is on the other foot, so man up and stop complaining.
Letter missing facts on furniture program
With the July 29 letter of Vincent Colonno (chief executive officer of Catholic Charities), we are privy to the facts of the Catholic Charities Furniture Program closing.
His letter lacked the facts, apparently due to very poor homework.
We are first informed in his letter that the furniture program is located in Rotterdam Junction. In fact it is, and has been since it moved from Rensselaer, located at Corporation Park in Rotterdam. Next we hear of the challenges of operating the program. Every not-for-profit program is a challenge, but one that tripled over a two-year period (2009-2010) would appear to be one worth saving. The fact is the growth was part of the reason for the move to Rotterdam.
The letter goes on to point out that "further research" found other nonprofit programs offering the same services. These other programs were previously identified by Mr. Ken Goldfarb, diocesan spokesperson, when the closing was first announced. The three programs that were identified just happened to be the very same ones that Catholic Charities furniture staff had been referring clients to in the past whenever the Catholic Charities program went on hiatus (December 2009 and 2010) and during their move to Rotterdam in 2012. Some of these newly "researched" programs have been operating for years.
Further in his letter, Mr. Colonno explains that as "good stewards of our donations and our funding," it was decided to discontinue the furniture program and instead spend its funds on "feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and providing other out reach services ... " What is left unsaid in that statement is that those programs all generate outside, especially government, funding. This is something the furniture program has not, nor currently does.
It might be well to note here that if Catholic Charities is concerned with program duplication, they should look at their food pantries and homeless programs. Of 51 food pantries in Albany and Rensselaer counties, Catholic Charities runs five. The homeless programs reflect similar numbers.
Finally, if Catholic Charities was serious about a furniture option, as Mr. Colonno would lead one to believe with his final comments of "possibility of providing furniture services again at some future date," he might want the help of his current furniture program volunteers. It seems that when the volunteers first heard of the closing, they went searching for help. In speaking to government representatives, one volunteer was told by both a state and a federal representative that they felt money was available through local funding grants for this very usage.
At a meeting, this information was shared with the executive director, whose surprise was quite evident. Seems someone needs to do some homework to become the "good steward" they so long to be.
Owners responsible for training their dogs
I read with conflicting emotions the substantial coverage in both local newspapers this past week about the "dangerous dogs" in Schenectady who were retrieved by Animal Control and subsequent editorials about this situation and the subject in general.
As a dog owner, I can only imagine the trauma the victims of this incident felt and still feel. There is little that can make this right for them.
My husband and I agree with the Aug. 11 editorial about where the fault lies here. In most cases, it is with the owners. But it is the animals that end up on the losing end. Dog ownership, or as we prefer, stewardship, comes with responsibilities -- training being one of them.
One incident of dog-to-dog aggression should be enough to cause one to seek help to stop, as the Dog Whisperer" Cesar Milan refers to it, this bad behavior. He and other trainers across the country work with dogs daily to retrain them and their owners to be better members of the community. From what I understand, carelessness and lack of addressing this aggression issue resulted in this tragedy.
Given they have no history of aggression toward humans -- adults or children -- we'd hoped the judge would consider other options before condemning these dogs to die. Other options include a retraining program and, if necessary, placing the dogs in another situation.
Clearly the dogs are loved by their family, but love is not enough. We don't allow our children to pursue bad habits without correction. Why do people think that these intelligent beings we live with don't also require training, discipline and supervision?
Why must the animals always pay the price for the meanness in people, their negligence or, in this case, the apparent complacency and carelessness of the owners?
Don't let left change paper's improvement
I agree with some of the recent letters to the editor concerning the changes on political bias. How refreshing it is not to be bombarded with all the previous liberal editorial viewpoints.
I hope The Gazette will continue with the balanced viewpoints. It sure gives me new hope for America. Hurray!
Please don't allow other letters telling you they will be looking around for another news source to change your new ways.
Thank you. Stay strong and don't let the left's intimidating ways try to change you back to their way of thinking.
Support horse safety act to end abuses
May thanks to Suzanne Miller for her Aug. 6 letter ["Horses' welfare must be track's top priority"] calling for stricter regulation of the horse racing industry.
The terrible abuse of horses by a leading trainer and his staff is unlikely to be an isolated incident. Clearly this is a business that needs to be closely monitored.
You can help by contacting your U.S. representative and senators and asking them to support the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Act of 2013, to put a stop to the over use of drugs in horse racing.
Beryl D. Dickson
Why is left afraid of opposing viewpoints
I have seen a few letters about The Gazette's radical turn to the right. I find it odd. For years and years, the paper has kept to the strict industry standards of four parts left and one part right. You inch over just a wee bit closer to the center and the lefties howl hysterically.
Is letting the readers know both sides of an issue really that scary? Allowing people to make up their own minds without controlling all the information they get must be somewhat frightening.
The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.
There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.
All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.
Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.
For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.
For more letters, visit our Web site: www.dailygazette.com.