TODAY'S PAPER
Good Morning
Good Morning
OpinionLetters

How can NFL players make this much money?

Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott during a news

Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott during a news conference at the team's NFL football practice facility in Frisco, Texas, on Wednesday. The Cowboys and Prescott have finally agreed on the richest contract in club history, two years after negotiations began with the star quarterback. Credit: AP/LM Otero

Dak Prescott, the Dallas Cowboys quarterback, just signed a four-year, $160-million contract ["Tag focus on safeties, WRs and linemen," Sports, March 10]. If a person such as a teacher were to average $100,000 a year in salary during a career, it would take working for 1,600 years to equal what Dak is going to earn in four years. I think it’s time to throw a penalty flag.

Richard Jacobson,

Plainview

It’s GOP steering voter suppression

A reader from Roslyn Heights wrote that Republicans are devoted to the principles of "free and fair elections" ["Voter suppression as defined by Democrats," Letters, March 3]. So how does he explain the persistent efforts by Republican-controlled state and local legislatures to gerrymander election districts and/or place obstacles in the way of convenient voting access that are designed explicitly — with almost surgical precision — to curtail participation in elections in districts most likely to favor Democrats by relatively large margins? And how does he reconcile his observation with the statement recently made by the attorney representing Arizona in its Supreme Court case, in which the lawyer virtually conceded that the relatively easy voting procedures put the GOP "at a competitive disadvantage to Democrats"? By contrast, the plaintiffs’ attorney stated that "parties should be trying to win over voters on the basis of their ideas." That principle ought to be the goal of all political candidates and officeholders and, at least in theory, should be readily accepted by all Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

Robert I. Adler,

Port Washington

Big Pharma is more greedy than not

Marc A. Thiessen’s attempt to paint the big pharmaceutical companies as benevolent entities, to me, fell well short of the mark ["Demonized Big Pharma came thru," Opinion, March 5]. Most of the funding to cover the cost of producing the vaccines, etc., came from government funding — in other words, taxpayer money — and while some of these companies have pledged to sell their vaccines at cost, other companies are making a profit. Every company is entitled to and needs to be profitable, but big pharma companies, in my view, are, for the most part, just plain greedy, and the proof of that is Americans paying far more for drugs than any other nation on this planet.

James A. Clark,

Syosset

Call it a tempest in a Seuss-pot

Cathy Young’s op-ed "Hypocrisy reigns in Dr. Seuss stir" [Opinion, March 9] takes a familiar spin into false-equivalency town when she rightly points out that the controversy over Dr. Seuss is a tempest in a teapot by opportunists on the right, but liberals should also feel ashamed if they are not outraged, too. Sorry, but I don’t agree. I am not outraged about Dr. Seuss or Mr. Potato Head. Just like I was not outraged about the ginned-up war on "Christmas." There is no campaign to silence Dr. Seuss in the public schools, save a few outliers, and Mr. Potato Head can still get together with Mrs. Potato Head, and I celebrated another Christmas with all my liberal (and conservative) friends. I have no problem dismissing the controversy and will look forward to having Dr. Seuss around for years to come. It is perfectly fine to call a trumped-up rage campaign what it is — nothing more than writers trying to get attention.

Michael Hunt,

Franklin Square

Cabinet OKs should be a two-way tweet

I find it disturbing that Senate Republicans have attacked President Joe Biden’s choices for cabinet positions because of past tweets ["Budget nominee Tanden withdraws nomination," Nation, March 3]. Several of the president’s cabinet choices did send out tweets critical of Republican actions. Our Constitution says everyone has freedom of speech. The Republicans are hypocritical in attacking Democrats for their tweets. What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander. But most disturbing to me is that they seem to be saying that if you are not a Republican, then you lose your freedom of speech. I find this scary because Republicans, in effect, seem to favor a fascist government in which the ruling party can dictate what can be said and done by its citizens.

Roger Kaufmann,

Northport

Landscapers can help remove heavy snow

I know it’s almost spring, but responding to the senior asking for resources for big snowfall removal, I and two friends use our landscapers for heavy snowfall removal ["Help sought to clear big snowfall," Letters, Feb. 25]. We just call them for help. They do a great job and are happy to have winter income. If you don’t have a landscaper, ask a neighbor. Several are around our neighborhood every spring.

Carol Krupinski,

Plainview

Columns