LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Nov. 12
Bidding requirement is undemocratic
To the editor:
With all due respect to Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, he gets the facts wrong in his letter published in your Nov. 5 edition.
Mayor Hsueh states that the director of New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage Control "has concluded that any new application for a hotel/motel liquor license should be publicly bid." That simply is not true. The ABC has ruled that new applications for a hotel/motel liquor license "may" be bid. It did not rule that they "should" be bid.
Mayor Hsueh also states that requiring all hotels, not just new hotels, to bid for their liquor licenses is "anti-business and would be subject to legal challenge." The inference he would have us draw is that his proposal requiring new hotels to bid for their liquor licenses is pro-business and would not be subject to legal challenge. Mr. Hsueh is mistaken on both counts.
It is hard to understand how requiring new hotels to bid for liquor licenses is pro-business. We rather suspect that new hotels will not see a bidding requirement that will cost them as much as $600,000 as being "pro" their businesses.
Mayor Hsueh states that "as the mayor of West Windsor, I have the responsibility of making certain that all segments of our community are treated fairly and equitably, and measures adopted by our township are consistent with state law." By that most laudable standard, with which we wholeheartedly agree, the mayor should not be promoting a $600,000 expense that discriminates against the new members of our community and he should not be doing so under circumstances where the applicable "state law" is far from settled.
Limiting the liquor license bidding requirement to new hotels is discriminatory. It is offensive to any sense of fair play. It is not democratic. The requirement should be imposed either on all hotels or none at all.
Charles Morgan
Alison Miller
Members
West Windsor Township Council
Clarksville Road
West Windsor
Library transformed with help of many
To the editor:
Why did the Princeton Public Library look so different for a while on Nov. 6? Because it was transformed into a place for kids and their parents to learn about life "On the Move," as a first-ever, part two of the Friends of the Princeton Public Library annual benefit.
Kids were dribbling basketballs in the back driveway with PDS girls’ coach Sue Repko, trying the martial art of Krav Maga from Princeton resident and university graduate David Kahn, learning hip hop dance from YWCA dance director Christine Colosimo, watching graceful dancers stretch from the Princeton Ballet School, meeting Olympians from 1964 (diver Lesley Bush) and 2004 (women’s eight stroke Lianne Nelson and sculler Aquil Abdullah) and trying on their medals and learning from Sports Illustrated writer Alexander Wolff how a Princeton kid went from reading books to writing them. Parents were talking about what makes a good coach from Princeton resident and university graduate Merrell Noden and learning what makes a good sports photograph from Princeton resident and university graduate Joe Marshall.
We want to thank the event sponsor, Bohren’s Moving and Storage, and the support we received from Panera Bread. Thanks also to Aztec Graphics and the entire library staff, particularly Leslie Burger, Tim Quinn, Judy Feldman, Jennifer Mehlman, Chris Ducko, Sherwood Brown and Susan Conlon for making it happen, plus all the other librarians for their work and sharing their space, and all the volunteers who made the event run. Many Friends make light work. We also want to thank all our experts who shared their valuable time, enthusiasm and expertise to get everyone "On the Move."
Julie Borden
Hodge Road
Margaret Sieck
Fitch Way
Princeton
New commiteeman thanks supporters
To the editor:
My heart is filled with gratitude and pure joy for the many Democrats, Republicans and independents who cast their vote for me. This newly acquired responsibility is something that I take very seriously. I am looking forward to working with the current Princeton Township Committee and believe that I can help make a difference. This campaign could not have happened if it was not for all of the financial support and words of encouragement I received from a number of different people.
I want to especially thank Phyllis Marchand for being such an effective team player and a dedicated partner in this campaign. I want to thank Scott Carver for being so efficient as our treasurer. Special thanks to the following for going above and beyond the call of duty: Beth Healey, Pam Enslin, Paula and Noel Gordon, Dan Kirton, Dan Preston, Michele Tuck-Ponder, Minnie Rhodes, Carl Brown, Caroline Fury, Caroline Mitchell, Roz Denard, Suresh and Sudesh Chung, Al and Phyllis Phox, and Viola and Robert Randolph.
This campaign would not have been possible if it were not for my lovely wife, LaTonya Kilpatrick-Liverman, and my two daughters, Kelsey and Ashlyn.
Thanks to all.
Lance Liverman
Witherspoon Street
Princeton
Black history program shouldn’t be ignored
To the editor:
On Nov. 6, I attended a very enriching program on the need to teach black history in secondary schools. The group sponsoring the event, APIECE-NJ, discussed their efforts to incorporate a black history elective in Montgomery Township schools. Scholars and educators provided varied, yet interlocking perspectives, all of which support the teaching of black history in secondary schools.
I must say that, in spite of the thoughtful discussion led by erudite speakers, Baruti Kafele, Dr. Joseph Graves, Dr. Sam Anderson, Deitria Smith and Dr. Joanne Cunningham, I felt a sense of sadness for Montgomery Township schools’ parents and children because no administrator or board member from Montgomery Township schools was present in the audience.
As a former high school teacher, I know how important it is for school administrators to advocate on behalf of the students. School administrators should be models for societal advancement and should be the first to promote the philosophy of listening to others’ ideas even if they do not coincide with your own. The silence of these school administrators’ and board members’ absences spoke resoundingly in the room that day. It basically sent the message to the Montgomery school students present and their parents that their school system does not care enough about their interests to even entertain listening to their perspectives thoroughly.
I am aware that the administrators and board members have discussed issues of this nature with APIECE before, but their absence from the program caused them to miss new opportunities to gain clarity on the issue and to receive more insight regarding this organization’s principles and goals.
Today, we face ideological differences on every level in our society. Educational institutions from grade schools through universities must be the standard bearers of promoting understanding and unity even with regard to issues that we disagree on. Our children deserve to see administrators, board members and parents working together. The group APIECE-NJ asks the rhetorical question, "Black History: Why Not?" Upon leaving the superb program, I found myself asking Montgomery school administrators and board members: "Black History: Why Not Listen?"
Stacie McCormick
Primrose Court
Montgomery
Polling could replace voting in 2008
To the editor:
With our interminable elections behind us, but not yet cooled, plans are already under way for 2008. That being the case, several suggestions to simplify, expedite and reduce the appalling costs of our national elections recommend themselves.
First, there is no need for new, expensive voting machines. Our next presidential election will no longer require curtained, electronically controlled machines. This recent election clearly demonstrated that there is no need for a secret ballot, as set forth in the Constitution. We all know who votes for each candidate. We breezily respond to pollsters telling them who we intend to vote for. We have placards on our lawns, carry placards around town, have stickers on our cars, and buttons on our clothing. At dinner parties and other get-togethers, we have no compunction about regaling others of our preferences. Consequently, the secret ballot has become an atavistic encumbrance, a throwback to an earlier, more innocent age, certainly inappropriate for contemporary America.
For the next election, we can easily and inexpensively gather in an auditorium, gym or tent, and need only raise our hands for our preferred candidate, and we’re outta there. Poll watchers are no longer needed. It’s simple, cost-effective and rapid.
But wait. With the new National Election Pool predicting, early on, that President Bush was leading, and correctly identifying the battleground states, the bald fact remains that we need not gather to raise our hands. We need only a sample of some 1,000-1,400 eligible voters to give us their choices. The rest of us can go about our business unconcerned, unmindful of the goings on, comfortable in knowing that this sample reflects our opinion, the way we would vote.
We can now look forward happily to 2008 as a new dawn. No stress, no anxiety. No debates, no interminable electioneering. No more battles on the op-ed pages of our newspapers. And, heaven be praised, no more talking heads on TV, and of course no more voting. And we could make short shrift of local elections as well.
Anyone who seeks a repetition of 2004 with its tactics, strategies, expense and armies of lawyers and other volunteers has to have several screws loose, when it can be done so easily.
On the other hand, if we want our vote to count, if we believe our votes do count, then, away with polls. Consign them to the dust bin of history.
M. A. Benarde
Thorngate Court
West Windsor
Moral, spiritual issues shouldn’t be categorized
To the editor:
Though your analysis of the presidential election (Packet Editorial, Nov. 5) may be in part correct, it is wrong to classify one set of issues (embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage) as "moral and spiritual" and another (jobs and health care) as "domestic."
The soul-searching of the many people distressed by the outcome of the election prompts us to ask whether our political conversations are enhanced or diminished by our cultural reticence about the spiritual and moral dimension of our lives and the role of religious traditions in promoting critical reflection on issues of common concern: restoring peace to Iraq, repairing damaged international relations, creating jobs, reducing the deficit, caring for the environment, protecting the lives of the most vulnerable in our society, respecting the dignity of all people, among many others.
A question for all Americans is whether our society is well served by a political culture that fences off certain issues as "moral and spiritual" and discourages critical reflection and argument informed by religious traditions.
As Christians, we believe that our common concern for promoting values of justice, peace, tolerance, respect and human flourishing is best served when citizens are encouraged to bring to our political conversations and debates all their beliefs, including those that are informed by religious tradition.
There is a real danger for our society when we permit false distinctions such as setting aside certain issues as "moral and spiritual." These distinctions diminish our political life by suppressing the religious beliefs that are the life-giving source of care for one’s neighbor and concern for the welfare of all people, with the result that our political conversations are vulnerable to simplistic slogans and policy postures that play on fears and selfish motives.
To put it plainly, were all issues in this presidential election acknowledged as "moral and spiritual," then it would have been easier for us as citizens to speak to them from our moral and spiritual traditions and it would have been harder for one party to use them as a wedge to divide our nation and win the election.
Gregory Bezilla
Jacqueline Lapsley
Edgehill Street
Princeton
Join with president in facing the issues
To the editor:
During his concession speech, Sen. John Kerry spoke very eloquently with aplomb and "amazing grace." He emphasized the need to let the American voters decide the outcome of the election rather than through lawsuits, and he called for unity. Indeed, he should be commended and thanked. His peroration was without recrimination, retaliation, revenge or rancor.
Both Sen. Kerry and President Bush made a call for unity and understanding among all Americans, and The Economist headline theme was "Now, unite us" indicating that President Bush’s historic victory should be taken more as an opportunity than a vindication.
Just one week after the president’s remarkable victory, his enemies have started an unrelenting campaign of hostility, hatred and harassment. This, of course, doesn’t bode well for the republic. Matthew Miller, in his recent column titled "Let the Democratic bloodbath begin," wrote, "The people have spoken and now the people must be punished." With so many people in the entertainment industry, in the media and people like George Soros thinking that we Americans are a bunch of morons and imbeciles, one often wonders how we are going to move forward to a more civil society.
The front-page headline of the London Daily Mirror read, "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party now controls the Senate, the House, the executive branch as well as 28 governorships across the land. That overwhelming reality cannot be pushed aside for practical, pragmatic reasons and for the good of the country. The road ahead is extremely difficult and complex and President Bush has demonstrated that he is up to the task.
Our national security is paramount; our challenges abroad are very serious, but we are making steady progress. Afghanistan now has a democratic elected prime minister, Saddam Hussein is in jail and Arafat’s leadership has evaporated. We are making progress with the nuclear issues in Iran. On the economic front, more than 337,000 jobs were created in October, chances for further tax reductions are on the way and the movement to fix the Social Security problem is already on schedule. I commend the president for his victory and I urge fellow Americans to join with him in facing the issues in the days ahead.
Jack Marrero
Cherry Hill Road
Princeton
Regional bias is hurting Democrats
To the editor:
I can’t help but feel that John Kerry lost to George Bush mainly because he is a Northeast Democrat. The last Democratic president from Massachusetts was John F. Kennedy. This regional bias is endlessly frustrating to those of us in the Northeast and intimates that the Civil War was never actually won. Until we can find a way to reach those who would vote with such unwarranted prejudice, the entire nation will continue to be held captive to this lopsided method of voting and its deeply flawed results.
As to the Republicans having superior "moral values," I see nothing moral in lying to the public about initiating a war that is killing scores of people or destroying voter registrations. The Democrats would do well not to respond defensively to these charges but to take a different course of action against a political party that uses dirty tactics and twisted logic. What tactic that should be remains to be seen we have a long, difficult road ahead of us.
Bonnie Schultz
Longview Drive
Princeton
Divisive president appeals to basest impulses
To the editor:
Four years ago, George W. Bush promised us that he would be a "uniter, not a divider." Last week, Mr. Bush was elected to the highest office in this country by doing exactly the opposite of this.
President Bush now presides over the most fractured constituency this country has ever seen, due to his divisive first term and subsequent campaigning for a second, based upon a foundation of fear-mongering, scapegoating and pure hatred. Instead of speaking to our dreams and hopes for the future, he has appealed to our basest, darkest impulses.
George Bush claims to be a pious man and his followers espouse him to be a man of great morals and righteousness, yet throughout his career, he has constantly shown little compassion for anyone outside of his religious or social strata, and even less respect for life itself. How can one claim to be so pro-life, yet be personally responsible for so many deaths? During his tenure as governor of Texas, he had the highest number of death-penalty executions in the history of our country. As president, he led us into a war under false pretenses, killing now well over 1,200 of our own soldiers and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, who we were supposedly there to save.
Both of these abysmal records have been denounced by none other than the Pope himself, who is a strong opponent of the death penalty and actually said of the war in Iraq that it was a "defeat of humanity" that was neither morally nor legally justified. I believe the Pope to be somewhat of an expert on morality or, at the very least, religion.
Now Mr. Bush is claiming a supposed "mandate" with barely 51 percent of the popular vote, the smallest margin of victory for an incumbent since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. I fear for the country if he believes this allows him to continue his deconstruction of our rights with the Patriot Act, his demonization of homosexuals and his abhorrent penchant to scare us with terrorism every time there is doubt about the direction of his leadership.
Throughout his history, George W. Bush has questioned the very patriotism of those who speak out against him or his policies. As a father, who tries to teach his son about love, respect and acceptance of all people whether they look like us, love like us or even agree with us I now say we all must be very aware of what Mr. Bush’s divisive and hate-filled policies are doing to our friends, neighbors and family. As a schoolteacher, who has seen the horrible effects of the supposed No Child Left Behind Act and its abysmal under-funding, I now say we all must be very cognizant of the education our children are getting (or in this case, not getting). And as a true patriot, I now say we all must speak out very loudly any time we see injustice and intolerance, especially when it iss meted out by our president.
I encourage my fellow citizens to join me in this crusade for the next four years as we preserve our future, protect our children and secure our country, because as our president himself once said, "Fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can’t get fooled again."
Robert Seda-Schreiber
Salem Court
West Windsor
U.S. is wise to ignore European appeasement
To the editor:
The European reaction to the U.S. presidential election needs to be interpreted in historical perspective. If Europe had been polled in the late 1930s prior to World War II concerning the need to confront Hitler, the views of Chamberlain and other European leaders would doubtless have prevailed.
The popular notion of appeasement and the sense of security provided by outmoded walled defenses were strongly held. Only the emergence of the strong leadership provided by Winston Churchill and the willingness of the United States to bail out Europe for the second time in that century prevented the dominance of the continent by dictatorships.
Today, appeasement and inaction in the face of serous threat has again emerged among vocal European groups aided by the mainstream media. Tony Blair finds himself in the position of Winston Churchill and the United States has assumed its all-too-familiar leadership role in the global war on terrorism.
The emerging scandal of the Oil for Food program has brought serious corruption allegations to the very doorstep of the United Nations and to highest levels of the French and German governments. The security interests of this country cannot be subjugated to the economic interests of other parties.
The United States is thankful for the contributions of the large coalition assembled to rid the world of Saddam Hussein in a frontier of the war on terrorism. We look forward to the emergence of a democratic government in Iraq as an important role model for that vital region of the world.
Wade H. Coleman
Monroe Avenue
Lawrence