to Miriam (“I’m not a sore loser”) Axel-Lute: Yes you are
[“I Do Not Concede,” Looking Up, Nov. 4].
And to Ian Williams who thinks Bush voters didn’t understand
what they were voting for: Yes we did [“The Day After,” Opinion,
Why can’t you left-wing whiners accept that a majority of
Americans voted for Bush not because they were miscounted,
or misled, misinformed, hornswoggled, ignorant or crazy, but
rather because they simply don’t agree with your view of the
world and of what’s best for America? And that such disagreements
are legitimate? You lefties demand respect for your “dissent”
but have no respect for anyone’s dissent from your views.
You insist on being heard, but you never want to listen.
My vote was really cast less in favor of Bush than it was
against the hysterical venom of the Bush haters. And the election
hasn’t stopped it. The Times Union quotes one writer
now calling Bush an “evil dictator.” Your Ian Williams says
the Republican party “in some localities is the direct descendant
of . . . the Klan” (actually more true of the Democratic party
in the South), and suggests the blue states should consider
seceding and joining Canada. A prominent local public radio
commentator on Nov. 3 said America under Bush is becoming
like Nazi Germany. And these are the people calling Bush extremist
I actually fault Bush for often acting like he’s leader of
only half the country. He hasn’t had much to say to his opponents.
But if you want to see the real source of today’s venomous
divisiveness, look in the mirror.
I didn’t agree with Kerry voters but I can understand their
choice and I believe their votes were motivated by sincere
ideals. But for those on the left, it’s never enough just
to disagree, you demonize the other side, impugning their
motives, accuse them of voting out of ignorance, bigotry,
or meanness, or religious fanaticism, or to serve the interests
of corporations or the rich. You never acknowledge that they
might have sincere ideals too.
Hello: I am not a bigot or corporate toady or religious zealot
(I’m an atheist). Nor am I ignorant or misled. I voted for
Bush because I believe that choice is better for all Americans,
rich and poor, black and white. And indeed, better for human
values throughout the world. If you don’t agree, that’s your
right. This is a free country—even under President Bush.
realize that you do not employ Mr. Williams at Metroland;
however, I assume that your decision to publish his piece
means you at least sympathize with his views. That being said,
I find his comment that all states who voted for Bush should
be left “to the creationist faith they deserve” offensive
and simplistic. First, not everyone who lives in these states
supported Bush (shocking thought!). Many of the persons residing
in these “irrational” states, including my parents who live
in suburban Cleveland, did not vote for President Bush, nor
are they the fundamentalist Christians that Mr. Williams supposes
makes up the whole of the populations of these unenlightened
Mr. Williams’ article displays the arrogance and divisiveness
he assumes only exists in people who hold beliefs he does
not agree with and therefore equates with barbarism. Is it
any wonder that people who are not “fortunate” enough to reside
in his version of the chosen land deeply resent and will not
vote for candidates who treat them as simplistic idiots, or
for candidates who have the support of people like Mr. Williams?
I understand that Mr. Williams is disappointed in the outcome
of the election. Maybe he needs to examine his own attitudes
and prejudices as part of the cause Mr. Kerry’s defeat—a candidate
who may have been identified, at least in part with the views
and attitudes expressed in this venomous piece.
read Ian Williams’ opinion piece and have believed for some
time that we Northeasterners should seriously consider secession
from red state Amerika.
This region has enough natural resources to thrive independently.
And we saw where Manifest Destiny got us. Keep it small and
This would make Red Amerika truly fly-swatting-over country.
Dubya could then escalate the crusades to his and Tricky Dicky
Cheney’s heart’s content.
Most people know, even those with Red Amerika educations,
we northerners comprised most of the original 13 colonies.
During the Revolution, the Hudson River was Middle
America. Since its inception, the United States had its roots
planted in rapidly shifting soil. Condi Rice called slavery
“a birth defect.” Or was it a mushroom cloud?
There is still a battle outside raging between ultra-liberal
Massachusetts and arch-conservative (read: slave state) South
Carolina. Does anyone believe that after 200 years, and a
civil war to boot, there has been much progress (excluding
the removal of “colored” toilets from red states that actually
had indoor plumbing) in uniting these radically uncompromising
viewpoints? The only integration Trent Lott’s mentor Strom
Thurmond believed in was practiced in his bedroom. Hell, Arizona
recently celebrated its 75th birthday. How could the upstart
Grand Canyon state supersede the wishes and seniority of the
Northeast in deciding where this nation is headed? Except
for the consolidation of vast power by the very few, these
areas have no common bond.
Let us face the facts. We liberal elite nabobs of negativism
will never convince bible-thumping zealots that religion has
absolutely no place in formulating public policy. This convenient
marriage (another topic we can’t agree on) of states is fraught
with peril and irreconcilable differences. The time has come
to revisit and modify two centuries-old philosophies with
a vastly more modern approach, divorced from closed-minded,
drenched-in- superstition beliefs.
Red Amerika can keep Old Glory, minus of course a few stars.
We’re creative enough to come up with a new one; perhaps revitalize
the Rainbow Coalition ensign? The gay-lesbian- transgender
community uses this symbol, but since marriage (“Any close
or intimate union”; Webster’s definition) will be legal for
all, perhaps it could be adopted as a national emblem.
So, are we there yet? Any area north of the Mason-Dixon Line
(the District Of Columbia can join us with full representation)
will be welcome to join a more perfect union. No longer will
there be a need for states, with their top-heavy, overlapping
uncoordinated bureaucracies (The butcher, baker and candlestick
maker—Pataki, Bruno, and Silver—will be jettisoned). Sadly,
the city that works, Chicago, will be bogged down in a Red
Sea awash in backward thought, but I’m confident Daleyland
will come up with a unique brand of governing. (A positive
note: the dead will no longer have to vote and can rest in
Red Amerika will then be unburdened by us whining, Brie-eating,
full-sentence-making liberals. They can go on a eternal crusade,
fighting preemptive wars until there is no more blood left
to be shed; they can dig for oil till the land resembles gophers
on acid; they can breed huge families and homeschool ’em;
they can ban abortion and gay marriage, and abolish all welfare
programs, unemployment benefits, entitlements, social security,
environmental laws, restraints on corporations, evolution
being taught in school, end all bans on weapons of any kind,
and of course enact an immigration law so strict most nonwhites
wouldn’t stand a prayer’s chance of getting in (unless it
was ordained by President Pat Robertson).
We would retain all that is banned in Red Amerika, plus institute
an Eliot Spitzer-regulated Wall Street, establish a new manufacturing
base with strong union representation, support a mandatory
livable wage, invest in educational excellence and institute
universal health care. We’ll have autumns in New England,
libraries with no banned books, museums, the arts, and the
Ivy League (red state citizens could apply for foreign student
visas) where athletics is secondary and played for the sheer
enjoyment of sport.
Red Amerika? They would have NASCAR.
The times they are a-changing. John Kerry asked if we are
ready for that change. As the first president of this new
nation, we the people would allow him the opportunity to set
us on that new course.
would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the
service provided by the Metroland. I am a weekly reader.
I feel the opportunity for alternative viewpoints to enter
the marketplace of ideas is invaluable. So, thank you.
impetus for this correspondence is my desire to answer the
questions, as much as I am able, posed in a recent edition
of this periodical [“The Wreck Next Door,” Oct. 14]. I am
an attorney for the city of Albany and I represent both the
Division of Buildings and Codes and the Board of Zoning Appeals.
I live four avenue blocks from City Hall and seven street
blocks from 130 Dove St. (approximately 30 yards west of Dove
Street). So the first answer is that I am a resident of the
city and coincidentally in same neighborhood as 130 Dove St.
I pass 130 Dove St. at least once a week on my walk to the
The second answer is in reference to neighborhood association
membership. It is my belief that membership in a neighborhood
association would be imprudent considering my position with
the city of Albany. Often, neighborhood associations appear
before the Board of Zoning Appeals and in the Division of
Buildings and Codes. On several occasions, the city has been
sued on zoning and building issues by neighborhood associations.
While these associations provide a helpful service, both to
their neighborhood and to the city at large, I think it best
to not be on both sides of an application or lawsuit.
welcomes typed, double-spaced letters (computer printouts
OK), addressed to the editor. Or you may e-mail them to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Metroland reserves the right to edit letters for length; 300
words is the preferred maximum. You must include your name,
address and day and evening telephone numbers. We will not
publish letters that cannot be verified, nor those that are
illegible, irresponsible or factually inaccurate.
Letters, Metroland, 4 Central Ave.,
4th Floor, Albany, NY 12210
or e-mail us at email@example.com.