Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Postscript

Letters to the Editor

by

comment

Oh, Carol

To the Editor:

As a constituent of City Council District 5, I am disappointed in the rhetoric of our newly elected councilwoman, Carol Chumney. In her letter to the editor (April 1st issue), Chumney asks, "What Neanderthal and childish mind-set thinks that a man has a right to give a woman a public verbal walloping in 2004?" Is the only defense she can muster up for the criticism she has recently received that she is a woman?

I reread the editorial that she referenced and saw no mention of her gender or, in fact, any suggestion of sexism. Did the thought ever cross Chumney's mind that perhaps the criticism she has received was well-deserved?

I am concerned that District 5 will get the short end when none of Chumney's colleagues will vote with her on items of the capital improvements budget.

How about toning down the name-calling, the defensive posturing, the articles and letter writing, and getting on with the business of running our city?

Sam Cantor

Memphis

To the Editor:

Regarding Councilwoman Chumney's letter to the editor: It is mind-boggling in 2004 that there are those who think a woman should be exempt from any criticism, no matter how obnoxious, self-promoting, and ridiculous her behavior. I guess Chumney is of the opinion that her time in the state legislature makes her better than any of the other lowly City Council members. Should we all bow at her feet and thank her for taking time out of her busy law practice, cashing in on the screwed-up family laws she wrote, to save us all from our own incompetence?

Thank you so much Council Goddess Chumney.

Randy Barnes

Memphis

To the Editor:

As long as there is a civic-minded public with divergent views, then all politicians are subject to "getting walloped" and indeed privy to "walloping back." It's naive to think that it's a gender thing, Ms. Chumney.

Charles and Joanie Lupo

Memphis

Frightening Insight

To the Editor:

Thanks to John Branston for his story on Dr. Rande Lazar ("Bad Medicine?," April 1st issue). The story is a frightening insight into the U.S. attorney's office in our city. Anyone who believes in our constitutional rights should be alarmed by the quotes attributed to the prosecutor's office. It is apparent that Dr. Lazar must have made an enemy somewhere to have been singled out for this prosecution.

Dr. Lazar has been one of several physicians my family has consulted over the past 12 years since moving to Memphis. He has given us excellent care and is well respected for his surgical skills. A quick Internet search shows that he has authored a large number of articles in medical journals, has been singled out for awards, and is a supporter of the Children's Museum, the Church Health Center, and The Orpheum.

It seems to be a recurring issue that Dr. Lazar spent less than 15 minutes with patients. As a busy professional, I really don't want to spend more than 15 minutes discussing my sinus infection with anyone. And I would ask readers when was the last time any of their physicians spent 30 minutes with them during an office visit? Is the prosecutor's office investigating all Memphis physicians?

C.L. Sive

Memphis

No Complaints

To the Editor:

Usually, I write to complain about the Flyer. Today I'm writing to express my appreciation for Jackson Baker's article contrasting Harold Ford Jr.'s past and current statements on the need for regime change in Iraq (Politics, April 1st issue).

Ford signed a letter stating: "As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq. This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. ... [I]n the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

It is reckless and irresponsible for him to now claim: "It now appears ... that the president was determined to go to war in Iraq and may have exaggerated the evidence he had for doing so."

While Ford seems like a likable man, this sort of bait-and-switch politicization is inexcusable. As Zell Miller recently said on the Senate floor, such attacks on the White House during a time of war energize our enemies and demoralize our troops.

Chris Leek

Memphis

The Memphis Flyer encourages reader response. Send mail to: Letters to the Editor, POB 1738, Memphis, TN 38101. Or call Back Talk at 575-9405. Or send us e-mail at letters@memphisflyer.com. All responses must include name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters should be no longer than 250 words.

Keep the Flyer Free!

Always independent, always free (never a paywall),
the Memphis Flyer is your source for the best in local news and information.

Now we want to expand and enhance our work.
That's why we're asking you to join us as a Frequent Flyer member.

You'll get membership perks (find out more about those here) and help us continue to deliver the independent journalism you've come to expect.


Add a comment