Letters 7.7.10

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

By JH Weekly Staff

Jackson Hole, Wyoming -
Misinterpreted interaction
In the Slim's Pickins article this week [“Reflections on Fischer,” June 30] Tyler [Alford] describes a interaction between a bartender and me at the brew pub.  The actions he witnessed were described correctly, but the interaction was completely misinterpreted.  This interaction between the two of us was completely friendly and joking in nature. 

I was not being scolded in any way.  The truth is that I get great service at the pub. I am always treated with complete respect by the bartender in question and by every other employee in the building.  I realize this is not the case for everyone who goes to the brew pub, but for me it is a friendly and safe place where I can be completely myself.  I like to tell people that I sometimes forget I am not in my own living room when at the brew pub.

I would like to see this clarified somewhere in next week’s JH Weekly. I am pleased to know that Tyler and many others have my back in this town. I like it when my name randomly appears in the JH Weekly, but I feel strongly that this particular interaction should be clarified.  Perhaps an article about the foibles of living in a small community, and how rumors and gossip can lead to misinformation that may be harmful to individuals and businesses. I appreciate Tyler and the work he does for your paper, but I do want this to be corrected on the record.
– Tom Woodhouse, Jackson

[Slim interviews Woodhouse about the incident on page 27. - eds.]

Pot-counterpot
Mike Bressler seems to miss the point in last week’s Public Editor column [“Pot, politicians and ponies,” June 30]. He admits that marijuana prohibition has failed, and yet he takes the position that it is a “waste of youthful idealism” for an educated, liberal white male like myself to attempt to end that prohibition.
He compares a pot smoker complaining about the violence of prohibition to an energy waster complaining about the effects of oil consumption. It’s not a very good analogy, but fair enough. There's only one problem - I'm not a pot smoker, and whether or not you use pot should have little relevance to your position on this issue.

Although I don't use pot, I am disgusted by the hundreds of thousands of Americans who languish in prison, and by the billions spent locking them up needlessly. I am horrified by the violence these laws have spawned, especially in Mexico, where tens of thousands have died in the crossfire of a drug war that we impose on the world. I am outraged at the hundreds of billions of dollars spent fighting a hopeless cause, even as we contemplate cuts to pensions and social security. I am saddened by the steady erosion of respect for law enforcement officers, and the marginalization of large segments of our society.

I suppose these are trivial matters to Mr. Bressler. Perhaps he believes we would be better off waiting until the powers that be decide to do the right thing for America, instead of funneling drug money to the special interests that contribute to their campaigns.

More likely, he believes the standard establishment line: that pot prohibition is a victimless law, and that it only affects potheads, and potheads are hippies that have no rights anyway.

But criminalizing harmless behavior, and setting up a massive national system to arrest, imprison, and ruin the lives of our friends and neighbors is not a victimless law. We all pay a price for this.  And if we continue to trivialize prohibition, as Mr. Bressler advocates, we will continue to pay that price.
– Pete Muldoon, Jackson Marijuana Reform

Marriage and the people
"I want to address briefly why we do not want this to go out to the people." The foregoing is a quote from Republican Rep. Swanitzer as he addressed the WY House of Representatives on 2/6/09.  Under consdieration: HJ 0017, a resolution amending the WY Constitution specifying that marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized by WY. Why such a resolution? To clarify the law: Presently statute 20-1-101 says marriage is between a man and woman whereas 20-1-111 says all laws in the U.S. and other countries must be valid in WY. HJ0017 was also needed to defend traditional marriage. If passed by the legislature, the matter would have gone before the people at the polls in November, where it belonged. It didn't pass.

Swanitzer's bias echoed that of so called Republican Representative of the people, Gingery, Illoway, Childers, Wallis and Cohee as they, in turn, plied their pedantries in process of sustaining conflict in the law and committing the crime of lese [sic] majesty against the critical and time-honored institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Joining the above in displaying their lack of rectitude were virtually all of the Democrat Reps. That's to be expected. Surprisingly  however, Republican Reps. Berger, Bonner, Brown, Landon, McOmie, Moniz, Patton, B. Pederson, Steward and Swanitzer also trailed along.

On 1/31/07 the WY Senate passed such a joint resolution despite no votes from Senators Case, Hastert, Massie, Sessions and Von Flatern thereby proving Rep. McOmie correct when he said on 2/6/09, quote: "They are always telling us at the other end of the building how much smarter they are than we are."

Some of our legislators don't trust THE PEOPLE. See you at the polls in August, neighbor.
– Jerry Jenkins, Buffalo, Wyo.


PERMALINK:
Letters 7.7.10 | Planet JH News Article: Letters To Editor

Leave a Comment