Trending
Calendar
 
CP on Facebook

 

CP on Twitter
Print Email

The Mail

No, We Can’t all get along

I know we all want government to “work.”

I know we all want government to “work.” (Baltimore City Power Rankings, Oct. 17)

That’s a fascinating illusion of possibility we all toy with in the wee hours of the mornings when Fluttershy and Rainbow Dash twist through our tortured minds, and Burroughs-esque nightmares seem as likely as the nightmare of contemporary American “democracy.”

But as a worker-centric Irish-American Communist (apologies to L. Custis Butler), I find the “can’t we all just get along” indictment of City Comptroller Joan Pratt disturbing. Seriously? After all the contempt-subpoena-deserving subversions of proper audits this mayoral administration has engaged in, a little sniping by the office responsible for the city’s finances seems perfectly reasonable. Baltimore City has never been a bastion of purity and never less so than under the current administration. If I were under the gun for civic finances, I’d be pulling dick moves in a last-ditch attempt at CYA because the mayor is so corrupt and degenerate I see no other way out.

Personally, I just feel bad for Ms. Pratt. Das Führer SRB has placed her in an impossible position after the audit fiasco; what else can one do but try to get in a few shots at an (apparently) indefatigable foe?

I don’t know who the mayor has dirt on to keep her job for this long. I don’t even want to know, at this point, because I’m sure I’d lose faith in the few civil servants I’m still capable of mildly admiring. But to sling dirt on Ms. Pratt for trying to get a few good shots in of her own . . . please, City Paper, you know better than anyone . . . engaging in dick moves against a total fucking dick is no vice.

Jason Lewis

Baltimore

Yes we can!

The quest to allow same-sex couples to marry is fundamentally challenged because it requires individuals to question the ill begotten monopoly religion has gained over marriage. As exemplified in Virginia Bartlett Rugemer’s letter (“Catholics for Buddhists for Equality,” the Mail, Oct. 24), in which she describes her laudable progression to abandoning Catholic dogma on this issue, this entails realizing that marriage is simply a contractual agreement between consenting individuals and the government’s sole role should be enforcing the terms of the contract, not stipulating who the parties may be.

Amesh A. Adalja, MD

Butler, Pa

Dear City Paper, I would like to thank Ms. Rugemer for her letter of support about Question 6. I have also been happily pleased at the large number of religious leaders of many backgrounds who also see this as a First Amendment issue.

I too, had to launch myself out of the “cracker barrel” hothouse I shot up in to experience a place with more diversity. Understanding with insight and sympathy the enormous range of human backgrounds is essential if we as a species are going to make it through this century, not just intact but better.

Ms. Rugemer is a person who truly understands what all the founders of the world’s faiths really wanted. That is to relieve suffering and not inflict it, which she does with more finesse than I try to do.

I end with one last question to those of our age and older who are resisting marriage equality so bitterly. Can any of us in the older generations really be so arrogant as to think we can ban the younger generation, by force of law, from developing as more compassionate human beings?

Kimberly Sheridan

Baltimore

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.
comments powered by Disqus