Letters to the Editor - Jan. 18

January 18, 2012

When the soul leaves the body, only a corpse remains

To the editor:

The statement in the Dec. 30, 2011, Herald-Mail was that “Zell loaded the woman’s body into his Chevy Blazer and took her to a cabin ...” Took “her” to a cabin? When one dies, there is no her, him, he or she left. Only the living stand alone as he, she, her or him. When the soul has left, the person is gone and only the corpse remains. It is disrespectful to the sanctity of life to refer to a dead body as though it is living.

On Dec. 31, 2011, it was stated in The Herald-Mail that, “he bludgeoned to death a 9-year-old girl ... then dismembered her.” He dismembered her body, not her. When we confuse life and death, we also often confuse crime against a corpse as being equal to crime against a person. Dismembering a corpse, while hideous, does not hold a candle to bludgeoning a person to death or mugging someone. A corpse, of course, is an inanimate object, not a person.

A few years ago, when the body of Laci Peterson was found, it was reported that Laci Peterson had been found. Likewise, when the remains of Chandra Levy were found, it was reported that Chandra Levy had been found. Where was it that we stopped distinguishing between life and not life? When did we start thinking of a dead body as a person? Perhaps this confusion as to what constitutes life or not life emanates from the uninformed and shameful practice of those who refer to inanimate objects as being female.

My heart grieves to think that, just even for a brief few seconds, maybe one of the members of these two families mentioned above was given false hope that their loved one had been found alive because of the inexcusably inaccurate way the discovery was reported.

Anne P. Wright

City’s recycling containers don’t need to be replaced

To the editor:

For the life of me, I can’t understand the initiative for replacing all current containers for recycling collection. Especially to the tune of over a half-million dollars that must be borrowed at a 4 percent interest rate. What an unnecessary waste of public funds.

The current containers are working fine right now for me and I assume for many other citizens of Hagerstown. I’m not aware of problems they present to citizens or to the new collection contractor. We have used them for several years and will continue for the next several months. Why must they be replaced? Shouldn’t the citizens have the option of continuing to use what is now in place and works well? Maybe there is some need in the center city at multiple-unit buildings for a new container that could be handled on an as-needed basis. In my case, I don’t need or want another container. I assume I’m not alone with this situation.

I’m well aware of the need to encourage increased recycling, but replacing existing containers isn’t the answer. I believe rewarding those who participate in recycling will contribute to increased recycling and reduce the solid waste stream. I am pleased the city has reverted to one trash pick-up per week, which is adequate if citizens participate in the program

On another note, replacing all containers is creating yet another waste situation. As I observe around town, the current containers are like new. We don’t need to add them to the recycle stream.

Finally, I ask if there is any flexibility with this issue. Could the city save any money by making it optional for citizens? Maybe the new containers could be offered on an as-needed basis.

Alfred W. Boyer

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for something new

To the editor:

Growing up in Cumberland was a great experience. Jobs abounded and crime was almost nonexistent. Enter Jimmy Carter, the ’70s Obama; his presidency marked the beginning of Western Maryland’s decline.

I’m saddened about the place of my birth. I’m also amazed at the continuing similarities between then and now. A foolish Democratic president takes over from a maligned Republican, and the Democrat and his party destroy the economy.

The only conservative Republican challenger to the ’70s Obama was a man who was despised by the liberal northeastern wing of his own party.  Electing Ronald Reagan would surely lead to economic chaos and nuclear war.

Fast forward to today. A progressive columnist recently suggested that Ron Paul is today’s Ralph Nader. I think that Paul is today’s Reagan. Paul, like Reagan, has bold ideas. His opponents hysterically insist that the day after Paul would take office, everyone would have drug needles hanging out of their arms while Israel, a country that has received our money for 60 years, lies in ruins.   

The primaries are coming up for Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia. Congressman Paul needs your votes. We’ve had 60 years of the same and, because of that, nice little towns like Cumberland are destroyed. Don’t let it be the model for Hagerstown.

Let’s try something new in Ron Paul. The progressive movement is dead and its failures are everywhere. Let’s try something bright and bold. Ron Paul in 2012.

James Parsons
Carlisle, Pa.

The Herald-Mail Articles