LETTERS: Tebow bowl spot, LIE drivers and more

Pro-choice side can buy its own Super Bowl spot

There is an e-mail going around that compares the ways conservatives and liberals deal with various issues . Part of it states, "If a conservative doesn't like what he hears broadcast, he switches channels. Liberals demand that what they don't like be shut down." An exaggeration? I don't think so. The fact that the pro-choice faction does not want the Tim Tebow commercial shown during the Super Bowl is a case in point.

The story tells how Tim Tebow's mother decided, against medical advice, to have her baby rather than have an abortion. The grown-up Tebow goes on to become a Heisman Trophy winner.

This is an inspiring and life-affirming story, which should not be withheld because of its theme. If the pro-choice side can come up with an equally inspiring commercial, it should be broadcast as well. I have the right to switch channels, should I so choose, but I cannot demand it not be shown.

Robert L. Scutellaro

Setauket

Slow drivers force trucks into left lane

I am not a tractor-trailer driver but I do drive a van with commercial plates throughout the tri-state area . I am not allowed to drive legally on parkways, the left lane or the HOV lane (although I do, on occasion, ride with a passenger or two). I am sometimes forced to drive in the left lane because passenger vehicles are where they are not supposed to be, either.

Ever see a sign that states slower traffic should keep right? That means if you can't (or won't) keep up with the flow of traffic you should be in the right lane or, better yet, on the service roads. The center lane is the "fast" lane for all types of commercial vehicles. You stay out of our fast lane and we'll stay out of yours.

Herb Hesse

Holbrook

Fund to host trials socks taxpayers

Does the Obama administration have some kind of spending sickness? It's reported that the administration is searching for a city - any city - to take part of a $200-million fund from the taxpayers and host the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed .

What's the matter with using the multi million-dollar, state-of-the-art Guantánamo facility, as Rep. Peter King suggested, thus eliminating the expensive security costs? Or does $200 million seem like chump change to an administration that is presenting us with a new $3.7-trillion budget?

What the heck! We all know there's an endless supply of money available from the deep pockets of the taxpayers and their children and grandchildren. Right?

Nancy E. Buonora

Islandia