Conflict of interest?
When our president takes his deserved vacations to Mar-A-Lago, he has to take his staff, his Secret Service protection and others. They have to be billeted in close proximity to the president, if they are staying at Mar-A-Lago are we, the citizens paying for their stay? If so, is the president prospering from this billeting? Would that not create a conflict of interest?
Curtis L. Brodnax Sr.,
Never miss a local story.
Swarthmore College, “(o)ne of the nation’s most prestigious liberal arts colleges is advancing a “queer theology” agenda with hopes of destabilizing traditional beliefs about what the Bible says about gender and sexuality.” They raise the question, “If we can point out places in traditional writings where God is nurturing, forgiving, and loving, does that mean that God is feminine, or female?” What does Swarthmore’s assumed characteristic identity and intended goal say about women, particularly in the area of their role in combat arms? How dare they insinuate that men and women are actually different by their basic nature, with different roles. Women of the world unite! rise up against such stereotypes!
I was glad to see a front-page article on the high school basketball tournaments. Perhaps next we’ll see a few local box scores. In year’s past, there would be multiple high school basketball box scores per day. I haven’t noticed one all year. More local coverage would be appreciated.
Kathleen Parker’s opinion column on “banning of words” appears to have been composed “deadline schedule determined,” well placed on The Telegraph’s Opinion Page.
It is not so much the words used in writing that are important as compared to the content, material’s veracity, or writer’s personal bias, that forms the backbone and heart of the article, story or report. The writer has little control to overcome the pettiness of some readers.
Arthur D. Brook,
One of your regular contributors expressed dismay with President Trump’s formal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He claims to strongly support Israel but believes the president should not have made this decision without requiring Israel to take “. . .concrete actions that the Palestinians would approve of.” He described the move as “radical” and a slap in the face to our European allies.
There has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in Jerusalem for more than 3,000 years. It has been the seat of the Israeli government since 1950, and its parliament and supreme court reside there. Recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the appropriate site of the United States embassy was codified into law in 1995 when President Clinton signed the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Every six months thereafter, presidents have kicked the can down the road by exercising a statutory provision to delay moving the embassy. President Trump had the courage to fulfill the intent of the law.
As for placating the Palestinians, it has long been their stated goal to see the state of Israel dissolved, if not destroyed. Seventy years of diplomacy have failed to sway them. As for Europe, Israel has always been a more faithful ally than any European nation, and that includes the writer’s beloved United Kingdom.
Ask somebody else
I asked a question in a letter to the editors not too long ago. My question was, “ Since when does a sovereign nation not have a right to establish the location of its own capital city?” I didn’t see any attempts to answer that question in subsequent letters to the editor until Dec. 27, when Frank Gadbois lambasted President Trump for recognizing Israel’s right to do just that. And for his desire to see peace between the Israel and the Palestinians, most Americans, I think, share that view, but also recognize that it is hard to make peace with terrorists who do not recognize the right for their country to exist and whose stated desire is to wipe you off the face of the earth. Those who call everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi should aim their epithets at the leaders of Hezbollah and the PLO, who really do want to kill every last Jew in Israel.
Martin Luther viewed a Rampart magazine photo essay, “The Children of Vietnam” and it sickened him. Four months later, King publicly denounced the Vietnam War. King said prophetically, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” Now, Time magazine has named the #MeToo Movement, its Person of the Year. Time called them: “The Silence Breakers.” Appropriate.
Employers’ company policies, contractual agreements, and federal guidelines solidify their decision making in sexual harassment cases. Employers must grant employees charged with sexual harassment, an opportunity to answer the complaint. While federal law authorizes a company to prohibit supervisor/subordinate relationships; companies must decide. However supervisor/subordinate affairs prove calamitous. They incite favoritism charges and if the relationship implodes, the subordinate could claim the relationship was forced. Then if the subordinate is discharged, a retaliation claim could result.
A 1995 Wal-Mart policy prohibited employee relationships even if they occurred outside work hours and off site. The New York State Department of Labor challenged the policy. Judge Robert Patterson ruled the statute protected cohabitation, off the employer’s premises … and not on the employer’s time.
Employers must inject transparency and tenacity within their companies or risk exposure like the Catholic Church, Congress and Fox News. Harvey Weinstein, Charley Rose, John Conyers, Matt Laurer and others had their careers hurled into the trash heap after their sexual misconduct came to light.
Employers must attack sexual misconduct in the workplace like vermin. Exterminate it or face the inevitable rot and ruin.
Marc D. Greenwood,
Camp Hill, Alabama