Letters to the Editor
I find it somewhat annoying when people take it upon themselves to tell
other people how they should be eating, much like those who tell others what
not to wear. Do they ever think about how condescending their attitude is,
however much they believe in it? Eating in a more healthful way is laudable,
and what matters is if people have easy access to educating themselves, and
having choices where they shop.
Telling people they should spend more on
food so they can
support organic farmers is wrong in my book.
Who is anyone
to decide what others can afford? My sister shops almost exclusively at a
co-op and is spending as much as 25 percent of her not-generous income on
food. It's hard enough for poor people to get by.
What makes sense is to
encourage stores to carry more than the usual junk. Frozen vegetables are
often the healthiest and most economical choice. Restricting your intake to
what is currently in season is a step back to the 19th
century, when people
canned their own vegetables.
Organic food does not always taste better. I
appreciate having fully usable produce that has not been bruised or burrowed
into by pests. Virtually every message in advertising is "spend more money
on yourself", and conversely spending less on others. This is just
one more of those lifestyle obsessions. Live your life as you choose, and
let other people choose their own way without your pressure.
I consider it a
great accomplishment that our farms can feed so many people so cheaply. But
then, I'm from Minnesota.
-- Saul Davis, Philadelphia, PA
It is about more than just guns!
Your article on the Virginia Tech Massacre
and the tragic death of Dr. Liviu Librescu is a nice
tribute the man the world now knows as a selfless hero, a
distinguished professor and a great scholar.
The article Never Again? is also rich with facts.
Certainly, the non-uniformity
with which the current laws are applied and enforced among the states
one of many things that points to a surprising lack of unity in the
United States of America. I have often quipped that they should
be called the Collective States of America.
Even though there are a lot of insightful and thought provoking
things in the article, I thought tying the moral decay of society to
the ease of gun ownership was a bit overbearing and simplistic.
There is no doubt that it should have been harder for the shooter to
have obtained the guns, but would that have prevented the tragedy?
The volatile element in the attack was the troubled youth. It is
unchecked anger that manifested into hate that killed all those
people. Even if stricter enforcement of gun laws had prevented the
shooter from buying a gun, he would have eventually and disastrously
erupted with violence and hate unless his anger was calmed.
I will stop here, for fear of making a statement as fundamentally
flawed as "It's about the guns!", except in the other extreme. In
the real world, we cannot eliminate all implements of destruction and
we cannot eliminate all hate, although each ideal carried out
completely would prevent tragedies of this sort. By focusing too
much on extraneous factors, we will just change tragedies, not
-- Ralph Curry, Redmond, WA
The Philadelphia Jewish Voice welcomes the
of articles and letters to the editor
letters @ pjvoice.com.
Please include name, address and phone number for
We cannot publish every submission we receive. We
also reserve the right to edit submissions for length, clarity, grammar, accuracy,
and style, though we will never intentionally distort the author's intent.
editor @ pjvoice.com.
Did you enjoy this article?
- share it with your friends
so they do not miss out on this article,
(free), so you do not miss out on the next issue,
(not quite free but greatly appreciated) to enable us to continue
providing this free service.