Opinion » Mail

Mail and Commentary May 9, 2012

"... like having the antichrist teach Sunday school!"

—anonymous, "Bill Maher Stands in for UCLA Politics Professor," Cobweb, May 3, 2012


The Boise City Council should not put business owners in a position where they are competing with a business across the street as a result of a public health policy matter. The authority of city councils is not to enact public health policy decisions of this scale, just as they cannot mandate health insurance requirements, liquor control laws for minors or the age at which someone can smoke. These public policy decisions are reserved for our state legislature. Cities should not impede commerce on an inter- and intra-city basis.

Not only does the [smoking] ordinance unfairly impact established businesses causing economic hardship to the bars' owners and their staff but tells us we are not to be trusted with our own choices. The City Council members have overstepped. They were not voted into office to be our conscience or our babysitters.

Are we becoming a civilization that can't be trusted to make our own decisions? We have the choice of going to a bar that allows smoking or one that doesn't. We have the choice of working in a smoking or nonsmoking environment. Are we becoming so averse to personal responsibility for our choices and actions that we need to rely on someone else to dictate what we should and shouldn't do? By giving over personal decisions to the government, we just provide a scapegoat for ourselves. Have we become such cowards? Our country was built on integrity, honor and personal freedom, and we are giving ours away.

The City Council members were voted into office to help our city, its people and its businesses thrive. This ordinance hurts businesses and the people who depend on them for a living, so we need to make sure the sitting City Council members are not re-elected in 2013. If we're old enough to vote, we're too old to have babysitters.

--Tom Criner, Boise

Damned Deviants

As your company information indicates, you are a member of the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, I wonder what alternative. In Boise, would you be an alternative to the Idaho Statesman? It seems to me, your paper and the others are likeminded as far as your political views. There is no voice for any political opinions but your own. With Ted Rall, Bill Cope and such articles that always attack the right and always support the left, without rational or cohesive thought, is disgraceful.

I am conservative, old and somewhat well read. I am not a writer, and I have made my own way in the world. I am retired and do not need to prove anything to anybody. I do, however, recognize your continued secular humanistic propaganda that is destroying this nation with lies, innuendoes and spin factory facts. When you normalize immoral and deviant behaviors, you are severing the hands that feed you.

How can your staff curse the American way, try to help change it to a socialistic or communistic system that will, by its very rules, put you out of business? How can the advertisers in your paper also help in the very objectives that will disqualify them from doing business?

Recommendation: To be a truly alternative paper, you should not only allow, but also ensure, the alternatives are all covered. Balancing your editorials, writers, columnists and opinions would go a long way in producing truth. (And just think about the controversy you could enjoy in the battle that would surely ensue. More people reading your paper, the more advertising could be sold. You would grow.)

As we each make decisions based on the knowledge we have at the time, and unless your agenda is slanted in such a way that information, truth and sincere thought are too dangerous to take a chance on, I strongly recommend a balanced and truthful approach to production goals.

The system that your paper tries to tear apart is the system that allows you to be in business and make money. (How could your current approach have been selected?) I only ask that you cognitively process your, up 'til now, hypocritical advances to a secular and humanistic society.

It is my opinion that not only would you be closer to what is just and right, you would also make a bunch more money in the process. That, in itself, would allow you to serve more people in other places--for a longer time.

—Chris Jones, Boise