Notre Dame’s lying star doesn’t deserve to be drafted
Notre Dame’s lying star doesn’t deserve to be drafted
Re the recent scandal at Notre Dame and imaginary girlfriends [Jan. 25 Gazette]: In Mr. [Manti] Te’o’s interview with Katie Couric, this young man only heaped more lies onto his pathetic earlier lies.
He initially allowed the media to portray him in a sympathetic light by publicizing that his young girlfriend died the same day as his grandma. Mr. Te’o neglected to tell anyone reporting on this sad story that the girl was an “online” girl that he had never met. Many people would have gotten suspicious if these two important points were not neglected. These are lies by omission because they made his story less genuine and real.
Once he was told on Dec. 6 that the girl did not exist, and was not dead, Mr. Te’o continued to give interviews about this false story, and how the young girl’s death influenced and inspired him. His deceptions continued the story line heading into the national championship game a month later, and the upcoming Heisman trophy voting. d.
In the Couric interview, he very conveniently said his biggest lie was in deceiving his own father. His crisis management staff told him to say this because he would be saying that being a good son is the most important virtue.
It [seems] Mr. Te’o lied because his story would make him a more valuable draft pick and garner more votes in the Heisman balloting. Both bring millions of dollars to this young man and his family, and positive press to Notre Dame. Notre Dame even publicly supported a story that was unsupportable.
I, for one, hope the NFL ignores Te’o in the draft. His actions, even after getting caught, encourage deceit, lies and cover-up to attain the holy grail. A draft selects an entire person, not just his prowess on the gridiron. There should be consequences for trying to fool millions of people, all to advance one’s self-interests.
Too many unanswered questions on fracking
Although the actual gas drilling in New York state is focused on the Marcellus Shale, many of the industry’s risks will likely be brought close to home.
Between 10,000 and 20,000 gallons of fresh water are required in the initial stages of drilling each well. Shouldn’t we be concerned about where that water will come from? Why can the gas drilling industry inject that water with toxic chemicals and not inform the public what those chemicals are?
Those same toxic gallons are removed from the wells as wastewater, or “brine.” Where will that solution be disposed of? How can our wastewater treatment plants safely discharge into our rivers when they are not equipped to remove the toxins from brine?
Why isn’t the gas-drilling industry subjected to the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Air Act? How can we protect New York drinking and recreational water when the gas-drilling industry is not required to divulge the ingredients of their drilling solutions?
Who deserves the most protection in this process, the taxpaying residents of New York or the gas-drilling industry?
Two men, three centuries apart, on work ethic
I would like to share two quotes. The first is from one of our nation’s founders, Thomas Jefferson, the latter [contemporary], by [Southern Baptist minister] Adrian Rogers.
These quotes basically express the same belief that our democracy is threatened very dangerously from within if we continue down the path we are now following.
“The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson.
“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” — Adrian Rogers.
Marchione went off half-cocked on gun law
Sen. Kathy Marchione has chosen to become the poster child for special interests and the gun lobby with respect to the new gun control law [Jan. 28 Gazette].
Had the senator truly wished to gauge public opinion on this issue, she would have invited people on both sides to express their opinion on her website. I am sure there are many in her district and in the state that approve these measures.
If the senator believes these laws unconstitutional, the remedy lies in the courts, and not in efforts to repeal them. Should she go that route, the decisions of the court might surprise her. The constitutionality of these measures is not a forgone conclusion.
Court rulings have established that none of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights is absolute, and the Supreme Court has already upheld laws that place restrictions on guns.
Courts often find themselves weighing competing interests when considering these cases. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ comment about falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater in a case that upheld a law limiting the freedom of speech comes to mind.
The gun control debate should focus on the issue of whether the public would be safer living in a society where assault weapons and large ammo clips are not available to the public and, therefore, can’t be used in the horrific crimes that are becoming all too frequent.
If that’s the case, I think the courts will find New York laws are constitutional.
Give Tedisco praise, not knock, for gun law stand
I was disappointed by the ridiculous accusations made against Assemblyman Jim Tedisco in Robert Corliss’ Jan. 22 letter and Frank Elfand’s on Jan. 25. You know that someone doesn’t have the facts on their side when they resort to name-calling and innuendo.
Mr. Tedisco has always been a champion of the people and continues to advocate for good government in Albany. Tedisco’s resolute objection to the manner in which Gov. Cuomo pushed through the [gun control law] without public input was commendable, and his vigilance defending our civil liberties contained in the Constitution admirable.
It is comforting to know that we have an assemblyman who warns against the danger of what Bob Woodward acknowledges when he stated that “democracies die in the darkness.”
While this law may have had the best of intentions, we now see that it was a flawed piece of legislation introduced in darkness. Instead of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, the law is giving New Yorkers a false sense of security as it does nothing but make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
I am grateful to Assemblyman Tedisco for having the courage to stand up and say what needed to be said in defense of our safety and constitutional rights.
Stands on abortion and guns contradictory
Gov. Cuomo is apparently determined to expand abortion in a radical way [Jan. 23 Gazette]. He wants abortion to be allowed throughout the duration of pregnancy; eliminate parental and informed consent; lift waiting periods; and allow non-physicians to perform abortions.
What ever happened to the Democratic slogan to make abortion “safe and rare?” How would allowing non-physicians to perform abortions make them safer? How would lifting current restrictions on abortion make it more rare?
This is really a sickening bill that would make New York the world’s capital for late-term abortions.
Gov. Cuomo should look in the mirror to help him understand why senseless shootings and massacres take place. Instead of pointing at guns, he should look at the “culture of death” he has helped perpetuate. Because, as Mother Teresa said, “If we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”
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.