We welcome letters to the Editor, a chance for members of the community to comment on issues of concern to them. All letters must be original, not duplications of letters addressed to public officials or written by others. The views and opinions expressed are those of the letter writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication, its publishers, Editor, or staff.
To the Editor
Janet Protasiewicz says she’s concerned about the safety of young children. But in her world many of those same children would have never been born. If Protasiewicz becomes a Supreme Court Justice, Wisconsin’s abortion law would be replaced with unrestricted abortion rights upon demand … right up to the moment of birth. Who could possibly think this is a good idea? But it’s just a little thing Janet calls “Women’s Healthcare.” What kind of a doctor would want that blood on their hands? If you vote for Janet Protasiewicz, that blood will be on YOUR hands as well! This is just one of the many bad ideas she intends to legislate from the bench.
Mary Felzkowski’s bill that would amend Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law with sensible, limited regulations is a great piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it’s about 6 months too late. It should have been on last fall’s ballot as a binding, stand-alone referendum. It almost certainly would have passed, and Janet Protasiewicz’s best campaign ammunition would have been neutralized. Because of the Republican legislature’s lack of leadership and urgency in this matter, we now stand to lose everything! Abortion, Act 10, voter ID, and so much more that has kept Wisconsin’s budget in the black … unlike all our neighboring states.
Janet Protasiewicz is a mortal danger to Wisconsin’s future. If you know what’s right, vote for Dan Kelly on April 4. If you don’t, may God have mercy on your soul.
– Jeff Krall
Merrill, Wis.
To the Editor
Shameless
A peculiar thing about gerrymandering is its shamelessness. Its shamelessness is underrecognized and underappreciated in the sense of refusing to see itself for what it is, how proud it is of its morality. Its very morality exudes shamelessness.
But how did shamelessness get to be so moral?
Gerrymandering is inherently undemocratic. It stacks the electoral deck. Wisconsin is so thoroughly stacked as to be a scientific experiment in political engineering.
What can possibly justify a deliberately imposed constriction of a more inclusive and participatory democracy?
Here we need to swing back to shamelessness itself in order to assess its morality. That is, gerrymandering is so patently immoral that the only way to deflect its immorality is to use political descriptors that portray gerrymandered voters as evil.
This shamelessness—and the strut and swagger that celebrate shamelessness—is what happens when a deeply immoral thing is “justified” (and therefore made “moral”), when those who want the immoral thing call themselves moral.
Gerrymandering is most immoral when it protects minority rule, neo-aristocratic wealth, and racial dominance. Understanding this evil requires careful examination. But advocates of the immoral thing call their effort good and they call evil those who want this immoral thing undone.
Gerrymandering is itself the immoral thing. Why is it so difficult to recognize this truth and vote
accordingly?
– Paul Gilk
Merrill, Wis.
The cost for Paid Letters to the Editor is $40.00 per letter of up to 250 words, plus $10.00 per additional 50 words, and must be prepaid prior to printing.