Comments by Newsworthy
Posted on May 7 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree wmarincic, but would add a factor. The unions could not have succeeded to such an extent without complicit aid from our elected representatives.
Posted on May 3 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vito, the journalist was doing her job. The name of the food truck wasn't selected by the reporter and, frankly, the derogatory term is rarely used anymore (or even recognized as such).
Derogatory names are only effective if their targets allow themselves to be hurt by them. Ignored, they lose their potency.
Posted on April 30 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I fail to understand your personal animosity for President Obama, wmarincic. He does not rule absolutely, nor single-handedly. It seems that a great deal of country's problems stem from the fact that people refuse to find solutions through compromise; everyone wants the world to run their way, without concern for other people.
You have every right to disagree with the sitting president and vote against a second term for him (or her, eventually). If you voted for the other candidate, get over it. Ask yourself honestly, if you could really do better when faced with all the political pressures and a congress best described as juvenile delinquents. Personally, I would love to simply exchange ideas with you and others, without the venom - just respect.
Posted on April 16 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
William, a thoughtful and courageous letter. The superintendent's reaction appeared politically motivated - a knee-jerk to public comments. She was too quick to throw her teacher "under the bus".
There are many possibilities involved with this choice of assignment. My initial reaction was that it was an objective lesson based on a sensitive topic that could offend many people. Perhaps the teacher planned follow up lessons, or she didn't anticipate the strength of the reaction, or she may have had the far deeper lessons in mind, as you mentioned. Maybe she made an error in judgement.
Now, a new question arises. What did the students truly learn from this incident? If only they learned to be as thoughtful and non-judgmental as William, it would be a successful learning experience.
Posted on April 5 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Frankly, the arguments presented by the Gazette are a load of crap. Many internet merchants charge shipping, which greatly exceeds even New York's sales tax. People shopping online often have to pay for shipping to return merchandise, as well. These eliminate any supposed advantage online retailers might have over brick and mortar shops. In addition, online shoppers don't have opportunities that local shoppers enjoy, such as trying on clothes before they buy them, using display models of products, and more. Besides that, if a difference of 8% really makes a difference to buyers, most local retailers could simply reduce their prices that amount and make up the difference in increased sales.
Now, look at what real stores are doing. Virtually all retailers match competitors prices, so again, that 8% isn't enough to make a difference. Staples, for instance, will match it's online prices in it's own stores.
Next, New York State is not in the fund raising business. According to the U.S. Constitution (paraphrased), government is only supposed to raise the minimum revenue necessary to meet it's operational needs - not looking for new revenue sources that allow greater spending. Instead of seeking more more money, New York State should be cutting spending - drastically. Its the thinking typified by the Gazette's editorial that contributes to the monstrous deficits facing our nation.
Posted on April 2 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fisherman's perspective seems a bit selfish. You really don't want to take constructive action that may save many people from the damages of flooding, just so you can rip open the mouth of a fish with a hook? I bet you don't live in the Stockade.
Posted on March 31 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I disagree with Bruce, in that no one - states included - should have the right to decide who can be married. The court should affirm the right of all American citizens to choose a person to marry. Same-gender (not sex) marriages don't harm anyone. They do offend people - too bad. We all do things that offend others and take offense in the actions of others; that does not give any of us the right to decide the behavior of others when it causes no actual harm. The specific intent of the Constitution is to guarantee rights to all citizens equally, without religious bias.
Posted on March 22 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cfield- really?! It seems like you have defined political paranoia. Do you really think enough Americans would get off their arses to revolt? Or are you expecting another Kent State?
I'm inclined to agree with janesjoy, that it's only a matter of time before some psycho cuts loose with an assault rifle (or worse) in an airport, train station, subway, etc. HSA agents on site could respond far more quickly than a police SWAT team. To accomplish that, the agents need to be well armed, armored and practiced. Hence, large purchases, regardless of the number of zeros in the quantity.
Posted on March 5 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see Jim Whitings point, that term limits usurp voters' rights. People still would have to be elected to hold office; they just wouldn't be able to amass sufficient power to criminalize their position, like Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver.
It appears Jim is really saying he wants everyone to join the Independence Party, in lieu of all others. That contradicts his position that there shouldn't be any parties. Personally, I believe voters have the responsibility to choose the candidate whom they feel will be best for the job - it is a secret ballot, so no one has to know who anybody votes for. That would eliminate the party powers. People just have to be convinced to do it.
Posted on February 26 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tues8capt, in line with your suggestion of a nominal salary for Senators and members of the House of Representatives (get it?), I suggest their salary be based upon the average wage of the voters of their home district. In almost all cases, this would lower their compensation significantly and (hopefully) provide more incentive for them to act on behalf of the citizens they represent.
That was easy for both of us to put forward without any name-calling, wasn't it?