Letters to editor for June 22, 2009

Why don't you go back to New York where you are from with your frieed? You have been a bane in our neck since you arrived. And to say that Mrs. Banish has informed our neighborhoods better than ever? She sure has, but only to "select" whiners and elitists like you which is why opposition to projects like the Church's have a bunch of Anglo NIMBY's there.

Regarding Loretta Rael's June 15 letter, "People first!": Ms. Rael seems to have confused a woman's right to choose with a woman's right to feed prairie dogs.
We fail to see what the care, feeding and protection of prairie dogs has to do with the lives of unborn children.
Is there something we are missing here?
Jeanne Morrison

You're not missing a thing. Ms. Rael prefers to draw an analogy to explain something that she apparently cannot put into perspective. I guess she doesn't think that little teen-age prairie dogs should have the right to abort an unformed fetus after violent rape any more than a little human teen-age girl should. Or, maybe she thinks that if a woman's health may be seriously undermined by following through with a pregnancy that she should bite the bullet and die, giving birth. That goes for prairie dogs, too. I don't profess to understand the "Christian" ethic and I don't make these things up, as the conservatives do a stand-up job all on their own. Trying to make sense of a two thousand-year-old book in a modern age doesn’t seem to do the trick very well, especially after man in his infinite wisdom has dipped his hand of literal translation and personal interest into the mix.

RandyNason wrote:

Regarding Loretta Rael's June 15 letter, "People first!": Ms. Rael seems to have confused a woman's right to choose with a woman's right to feed prairie dogs.
We fail to see what the care, feeding and protection of prairie dogs has to do with the lives of unborn children.
Is there something we are missing here?
Jeanne Morrison
You're not missing a thing. Ms. Rael prefers to draw an analogy to explain something that she apparently cannot put into perspective. I guess she doesn't think that little teen-age prairie dogs should have the right to abort an unformed fetus after violent rape any more than a little human teen-age girl should. Or, maybe she thinks that if a woman's health may be seriously undermined by following through with a pregnancy that she should bite the bullet and die, giving birth. That goes for prairie dogs, too. I don't profess to understand the "Christian" ethic and I don't make these things up, as the conservatives do a stand-up job all on their own. Trying to make sense of a two thousand-year-old book in a modern age doesn’t seem to do the trick very well, especially after man in his infinite wisdom has dipped his hand of literal translation and personal interest into the mix.

If anyone has some serious issues is you, dude. You do not speak for the community at large on this top and it is only an opinion that has no merit or validation whatsoever. Comparing prarie dogs to human beings is pretty stupid, don't you think? Zero thinking and no one is listening to you. Go to sleep. Nite, Nite......rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrr

Marilyn Bane wrote:

Why don't you go back to New York where you are from with your frieed? You have been a bane in our neck since you arrived. And to say that Mrs. Banish has informed our neighborhoods better than ever? She sure has, but only to "select" whiners and elitists like you which is why opposition to projects like the Church's have a bunch of Anglo NIMBY's there.

snore - another hate-filled off topic spam post.

RandyNason wrote:

Regarding Loretta Rael's June 15 letter, "People first!": Ms. Rael seems to have confused a woman's right to choose with a woman's right to feed prairie dogs.
We fail to see what the care, feeding and protection of prairie dogs has to do with the lives of unborn children.
Is there something we are missing here?
Jeanne Morrison
You're not missing a thing. Ms. Rael prefers to draw an analogy to explain something that she apparently cannot put into perspective. I guess she doesn't think that little teen-age prairie dogs should have the right to abort an unformed fetus after violent rape any more than a little human teen-age girl should. Or, maybe she thinks that if a woman's health may be seriously undermined by following through with a pregnancy that she should bite the bullet and die, giving birth. That goes for prairie dogs, too. I don't profess to understand the "Christian" ethic and I don't make these things up, as the conservatives do a stand-up job all on their own. Trying to make sense of a two thousand-year-old book in a modern age doesn’t seem to do the trick very well, especially after man in his infinite wisdom has dipped his hand of literal translation and personal interest into the mix.

HUH?

Norma W Long wrote:

<quoted text>
If anyone has some serious issues is you, dude. You do not speak for the community at large on this top and it is only an opinion that has no merit or validation whatsoever. Comparing prarie dogs to human beings is pretty stupid, don't you think? Zero thinking and no one is listening to you. Go to sleep. Nite, Nite......rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrr

And you as a resident of Albuquerque haven't a clue about Santa Fe

While Marilyn Bane may be right about Laura Banish's talent as a flack, she's wrong about the job. The chatter I heard was that Ms. Banish decided to go to graduate school before her job was eliminated, opening the way for the City to save the salary in these tough times....not because her job was eliminated.