LETTERS: Day of Prayer, Arizona law and more
Day of Prayer ruling is "unassailable"
I am sorry that a recent letter writer is "devastated" by the unassailable court decision that a "National Day of Prayer" violates the Constitution . Non-worshipers have the right to not pray, she points out. Unfortunately, this argument misses the point of the decision completely.
Everyone has the right to pray every day - or not - precisely because the Constitution states that the government will not interfere with the practice of religion. But the same clause that protects religion from government interference - and government from religious interference - also stipulates that the government can neither promote one faith over another nor encourage belief over nonbelief. A National Day of Prayer clearly indicates that the government is promoting religious belief, which is unconstitutional.
Every single day of the year, Americans are free to pray or not, as their conscience guides them; they do not need the government encouraging them to pray on an arbitrarily selected day.
Richard Schloss
Read Arizona law before criticizing it
At what point will those who either advocate or oppose a piece of legislation bother to read the bill before they rush to judgment "Anger grows over Arizona's immigration law," News, April 27]? Case in point, the new immigration law recently passed in Arizona. According to many, the law is nothing more than racial profiling. As a former police officer and someone who has read the bill, I'm confounded by that conclusion.
The Arizona law specifically states that an individual first has to have committed an infraction of the law before he can be further questioned as to whether he is an illegal alien. This is not significantly different from New York State statute, which allows a police officer who has pulled over an individual for a defective headlight, and subsequently has reasonable cause to suspect that he is also "under the influence" because of his slurred speech, to then question him further to ascertain whether his slurred speech was, in fact, the result of having been drinking.
Louis J. Friia
Northport
Nazi comparison was alarmist, inaccurate
In response to a recent letter writer's alarming cry encouraging Americans to wear armbands in protest of Arizona's new immigration law , I offer a few armband suggestions that he left out: A for Alarmist, I for Ignorant, D for Distortionist, and PS for Party Supporter.
Let's see . . . Nazi Germany: Brownshirts rounding up lawful German citizens (followed by Poles, Czechs, Gypsies, etc.) for extermination. Arizona: Law requiring nonresidents to carry ID to show that they are in this country legally. Reminiscent of Nazi Germany? Hardly.
This grandiose comparison for political purposes does a tremendous disservice to the millions of civilians who perished at the hands of the Nazis.
Harry Palmer
Patterson
School safety issue deserves real solution
There is much frustration and concern regarding the recent shootings and crime in the area around the Jack Abrams Intermediate School in Huntington Station . While crime and quality-of-life issues are not new in that area, the reality has hit home for area residents because school children are in peril.
One proposal would have moved the students to Huntington's Town Hall (a former school), and the town employees to Jack Abrams. The latest proposal would send all children in the Huntington school district to the school for one year (sixth grade), so that they are equally at risk.
Both ideas are fundamentally flawed. Civic leaders and elected officials have been trying for years to "clean up" the area in question. What would shuffling kids around accomplish? The threat to the community would still exist.
The only logical answer is to have the town, in conjunction with the Suffolk County Police Department, increase security patrols. Rid the community of the people that are jeopardizing the safety of the residents. Enforce quality-of-life laws. Keep the patrols constant. The residents should demand a real solution to this problem once and for all.
Jeffrey Redelman
Figures don't support Goldman fraud charge
All financial services firms, including Goldman Sachs, must ensure any financial investment is within their client's investment risk tolerance .
However, when a firm such as Goldman Sachs makes investment decisions through their proprietary trading desk, or house account, they do so with their own segregated money as opposed to their client's money, so as to earn a profit for their firm's account under different investment guidelines.
The SEC's civil charge that Goldman committed fraud when it earned $15 million (1.5 percent) structuring a $1-billion collateralized debt obligation is unconvincing. Published reports suggest that Goldman Sachs lost more than $90 million in buying the very same CDO. How will the SEC seek to prove that Goldman Sachs committed fraud? Against whom? Themselves?
A disclosure lapse? Maybe. Fraud? Based on the facts, I doubt it.
Michael P. Mulhall
Editor's note: The writer works for a global financial services consulting firm.
One oil-rig spill shouldn't halt drilling
When an airplane crashes, we investigate; maybe we even temporarily ground that particular model aircraft - but we don't cease all flying because it's too dangerous. If we stop offshore drilling after one oil rig spill, all we're doing is putting ourselves more in the hole to foreign oil interests.
By all means, let's investigate, and let's concentrate on improving anti-spill safety measures and developing better cleanup technology, but sorry folks - we still must "drill baby, drill," unless you're willing to put your car up on blocks for the foreseeable future, and also to quit flying and heating your homes.
Michael Biscuiti
North Massapequa
Airline fines should go to passengers
How does it benefit an average passenger, who is essentially "held hostage" in a plane for hours on a runway, if that airline must pay a $27,500 fine to the U.S. government ?
The aggrieved parties, that is the passengers themselves, should be the ones directly compensated for their distress and delay, as they are if they are involuntarily "bumped" from a flight!
The government should not be the only "winner" in this, their latest scheme to reap billions of dollars in fines, supposedly out of concern for the public's welfare.
Ronald Gendron
'I did not live up to the standards that I try to hold for myself' Justin Timberlake appeared in a Sag Harbor court Friday to plead guilty to a lesser charge in his drunken driving case.
