LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Posted January 22, 2020

Dear Editor:

Editors:

To our remaining female presidential candidates (and with apologies to Helen Reddy), you are women, we hear you roar, but we’re expecting something more.

This campaign’s female hopefuls have backgrounds as varied as they are impressive. All are tough as nails. Just ask them.

“The American public wants a fighter”, Kamala Harris said in a speech announcing her Presidential run, “and I’m prepared to do that.” Elizabeth Warren promises to fight for the working class.  Kirsten Gillibrand pledged to “fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own,” and Amy Klobuchar, who heartily announced her candidacy in a snowstorm proudly touted her “grit”.

Lots of fightin’ words there. Maybe it’s a prerequisite for today’s female candidates. Shrinking violets need not apply.

Some of these women have dropped out of the race, but we get the message. We’ve also noticed that what passes for strength and decisiveness in men is unfairly criticized in women.

My layman’s opinion is based on almost 50 years of voting.  I’ve been a man even longer and like to think I know what makes us tick.

To female Presidential hopefuls, no one’s asking you to give up the toughness that got you here. But there’s always been a reasoned, nurturing side of women that sometimes disappears during these campaigns. Let’s see more of it.

 Is that even possible in today’s frenetic Twitter-driven world? We know how men campaign and govern. Can you nurture us back to reason?

 Better yet, consider this exchange from the 1970’s Mary Tyler Moore TV show between employee Mary Richards and her tough-with-a-heart-of-gold boss Lou Grant:

Lou: “You’ve got spunk.”

Mary: “Thank you.”

Lou: “I hate spunk.”

Ladies, here’s a tip: think of male voters as Lou Grant--with perhaps more spunk tolerance.

Jim Newton

Itasca, Ill 60143

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Posted January 7, 2020

Dear Editor:

What was Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton thinking when she purchased recreational marijuana in Chicago on the first day of its legal sales in Illinois? Does she not understand that as a public official she is setting a reckless and foolish example, especially for children and teens?

Illinois policy makers are sending a dangerous message to our young people. First, we called it “medicinal.” Now, we call it “recreational.” Gone are the days of “this is your brain on drugs.” Instead, elected officials like Stratton are celebrating drug use by welcoming the marijuana industry to communities throughout the state.

Their feckless example will mislead citizens into a diminished understanding of the dangers of drug use until it affects them personally. As the perception of risk plummets, drug use (and addictions) will climb.

Not only have lawmakers failed to do their due diligence before passing this marijuana law, but they have also failed to heed the compelling research that indicates how regular use of marijuana affects young people, including an increased risk of psychiatric illnesses and loss of IQ points.

Parents, grandparents, teachers, and religious leaders would do well to counter Stratton’s irresponsible example by returning to the sensible message, “just say no to drugs.”

Sincerely,

David E. Smith, Executive Director

Illinois Family Institute

Tinley Park, IL  60477