Letters to the Editor submissions are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the web site editor reviews and approves it.
If you would like to submit a Letter to the Editor, click here!
Posted: Monday, December 09, 2013
Letter by:
Dee Landerman
If you don�t mind, I�d like to share an opinion. I believe gay marriage is ludicrous on several levels. Although it is designed by God, putting any religious aspects aside - just focus on the intended purpose: 1. Marriage was decreed for procreation. 2. Marriage is a safeguard for a virgin, making sexual intimacy with her husband acceptable. Without marriage she would be considered a whore or harlot. 3. Marriage was to protect her in pregnancy and insure support from her husband for herself and children. Within that framework of reasons� how does marriage apply to gay couples? It�s inconceivable (play on words). Physically, marriage is a uniting of two opposite parts, specifically made to fasten together into one working unit � otherwise it�s considered, odd, strange or perverted. In electrical and mechanical trades and manufacturing, each half of a pair of mating connectors or fasteners is conventionally assigned the designation male or female. The �female� connector is generally a receptacle that receives and holds the �male� connector. Even though today�s amoral society will frown on the fundamental reason for marriage, it doesn�t apply to homosexual relationships. Gay marriage is just plain idiotic, and so are the judges that pass laws to allow them.
Dee Landerman
Posted: Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Letter by:
Phil Bacharach
I was disappointed to read Dr. Deering�s negative remarks in the Nov. 22 edition of EastWord about the A-F school grading system administered by the Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Particularly troubling is her belief that the grading system essentially had been discredited through a pair of studies by OU and OSU education researchers. These studies -- the first of which was funded by two education-establishment organizations with a stake in the grades -- arrived at some curious conclusions. The researchers, who based their findings on a meager 3 percent of graded schools, found that 70 percent of achievement in the classroom is due to factors beyond a school�s control.
There are, of course, stark realities that impact students. Far too many Oklahoma children live in poverty and endure the litany of hardships that go with it. That doesn�t mean schools can or should give up on those kids. Education is often a way out of poverty. The grading system is about accountability, expectations and academic rigor � traits every bit as important in a school serving poor students as those in affluent suburbs.
Dr. Deering wouldn�t condone a teacher excusing low-income students from a math test. Surely, that same standard should apply to our schools.
The A-F grading system is clear, concise and based on a straightforward formula that is evenly divided between academic performance and student growth. That�s not the �arbitrary� concoction painted by Dr. Deering.
Nor is the grading system designed to embarrass anyone. Rather, it is a tool to bring transparency and accountability to a public education system in which, frankly, many Oklahomans have lost faith. A-F is akin to a visit to the doctor. Not knowing you have a health problem does not make that ailment go away. If you know about it, however, you can treat it and take steps to lead a healthier life.
So it is with A-F. Discrediting its review does no good. Rather, we need to look at the results and strive to improve opportunities for our children.
Moreover, Dr. Deering and the entire Midwest City-Del City communities have much for which to be proud. Mid-Del Public Schools had five A schools and five B schools. Not a single site received an F.
Phil Bacharach director of communication, Oklahoma State Department of Education
Posted: Saturday, September 07, 2013
Letter by:
Richard Rice
I�ve been asked my opinion about Syria. Syria is a difficult situation however, a no-brainer when it comes to what the solution should be. Sometimes when you see two bullies fighting it out, you leave them alone and let them fight. Syria and its rebels have been doing this for a couple of years now. Over 100,000 have been killed. Nobody has done anything because it is not our fight. But when one of those bullies pulls out a large weapon, like a gun, we step in and take away the gun to make the fight fair and to make sure innocent bystanders don��t get hurt. Syria recently used chemical weapons. And while those killed represent roughly 1% of the total amount killed, it��s an escalation in the weapons used to such a degree that we must step in. First, it��s not a fair fight. Second, innocent bystanders (and countries) might get hurt. Israel has been their target for years. After World War II, most Jewish people were moved from Europe to Israel to prevent further persecution. The world agreed with this move and promised protection to Israel. So we must. The President should have acted immediately. He has now given himself an out by waiting for Congress to vote. Time softens all wounds. The debate and vote is likely to fail, setting the stage for a future where America��s voice is disregarded. I am not a supporter of either side in the Syrian conflict. But suppose instead of chemical weapons, the government used nuclear weapons. How many would sit on the sideline then? The resulting action should be no different. And there is no doubt in my mind that whoever prevails in Syria will further continue to commit atrocities against the vanquished. While unfortunate, we can never allow chemical weapons or nuclear weapons to be used.
Richard R. Rice, Midwest City
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Letter by:
Joe Leek
Regarding the Aug. 22 issue, I am so tired of people referring to Travon Martin as a child. He was 17 and Zimmerman was doing what neighborhood watch does. I don�t think Zimmerman planned on shooting anybody. And about racism, if the roles were turned around there would not be an issue and no trial. Yes and this is racism also.
Joe Leek
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Letter by:
Kevin Wiyninger
You�re opening statement [a Grown man was following a child] �you used the word [child] each time you referred to �17� year old �Travon Martin. A child? At age 17, I was a father of two and married to the same women that I am married to today 42 years later. We bought our first home at age 17. At age 17, I was 6�2� and weighed over 200 lbs and at the peak of my physical prowess and very capable in physical combat against a man of any age. In contrast to so many youth�s today, I was gentle natured and respected my elders referring to them as sir or ma�am. Thousands of 17-year-old young men gave their lives in WW1 and WW2 . The media depicted Travon as a typical 14-year-old sweet looking well groomed kid with a friendly smile on his face. Why didn�t they show the 17-year-old Travon wearing his homie hoodie? When confronted by security, was he polite and courteous? Or did he display a surly and combative attitude? Did Travon initiate the violence? We don�t know the details,�but the jury did. One thing for sure Travon was no [CHILD]. As for racism, it has been my observation that blacks are far more racists than whites. ��
