To the Editor:
Re “A Cynical Low for the Democratic Party” (editorial, Aug. 4):
Cynical, certainly! As a reasonable Democrat, I discover it appalling that Democratic marketing campaign organizations are contributing cash to finance the first campaigns of ultra-right, pro-Trump supporters and election deniers.
Cash contributed to those Democratic organizations ought to go to candidates selling free and truthful elections, and who work to fight lies, racism and antisemitism. I would like marketing campaign {dollars} to help and assure that girls have the appropriate to make choices about their very own well being and welfare.
To study now that our marketing campaign {dollars} are going to advertise excessive right-wingers and Trumpers makes me surprise: Why would I ever contemplate making contributions once more to Democratic teams if they offer cash to the campaigns of the very individuals I want to see defeated?
Robert D. Greenberg
Bethesda, Md.
To the Editor:
I might beg to vary with the editorial board’s view that the Democratic Get together’s help for Trump Republican proponents of the Huge Lie is a “cynical low.” Your argument is that Democrats, who declare to face up for the reality, shouldn’t be supporting the deniers of reality, and, moreover, that theirs is a “repugnant and dangerous technique.”
However can it even be thought-about a deft political technique and well worth the danger? It’s not an unlawful motion, and it’s most likely not immoral, however simply plain sensible politics.
Raymond Comeau
Belmont, Mass.
To the Editor:
Whereas Democrats’ efforts to advertise far-right candidates, whom they understand to be simpler targets within the normal election, could achieve swaying just a few Republican main voters, they pose the higher danger of alienating giant swaths of unbiased voters like me who merely need politicians to behave with a modicum of honesty and integrity.
Particularly in battleground states like Michigan, the place independents have the facility to determine races with far-reaching penalties, Democrats can be sensible to construct the ethical excessive floor on election integrity reasonably than actively undermining it.
John Zainea
Ann Arbor, Mich.
To the Editor:
Let’s be cleareyed. There now not is such a factor as a reasonable Republican politician. I, too, detest Democratic donations going to appoint election deniers. However Republicans who didn’t get Donald Trump’s endorsement by and enormous deny local weather change, help abortion bans and favor a tax system that tilts towards firms and the rich.
Don’t shift the political panorama even farther in that route by describing these right-wing Republicans as “reasonable.” They aren’t.
Ken Eudy
Raleigh, N.C.
The author is a retired senior adviser to Gov. Roy Cooper.
Covid Priorities, within the Faculties and Past
To the Editor:
Re “A Proposal for School Covid Policies This Year,” by Joseph G. Allen (Opinion visitor essay, Aug. 6):
Whereas I admire the important thought and experience that Dr. Allen dropped at the discourse on Covid insurance policies in our training system, I’m involved that the scope too steadily narrowed on youngsters’s resilience.
Youngsters could also be far much less prone to be hospitalized or expertise extreme signs, however they’re simply as prone to move signs to grownup members of the family who may very well be at excessive danger.
The rules from Britain’s training system referred to within the article recommend that youngsters go to highschool unmasked if signs are solely minor (a runny nostril, a slight cough, and many others). These youngsters could simply move these minor signs to their classmates, who could as simply move them to an grownup (a member of the family or workers on the faculty) who experiences Covid extra significantly.
Sure, the choice is damaging: youngsters lacking faculty. However our educators and households might pay a bigger worth if we let youngsters move it amongst themselves and to adults.
Alexandra Davis
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
Joseph G. Allen says he’s writing in these capacities: “As a public well being scientist. As somebody who has spent almost 20 years doing danger assessments of indoor environmental hazards. As a dad of three school-age youngsters, and an uncle to fifteen.”
However Covid coverage in colleges impacts individuals schoolchildren work together with exterior faculty. This consists of the outdated and immunocomromised adults who can not take Paxlovid as a result of it interacts with their different medicines.
Writing as an outdated particular person, a liberal and a bioethicist, I’m wondering why a public well being knowledgeable thinks “the overriding aim for the subsequent faculty 12 months must be to maximise time within the classroom and make faculty appear and feel very like it did earlier than the pandemic began,” reasonably than recognizing that the overriding aim of any Covid coverage must be to avoid wasting lives.
Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Windfall, R.I.
The Wants of Ukraine’s College students
To the Editor:
Re “For Children of War, a Time for Play” (information article and photograph essay, Aug. 8):
As youngsters, their households and lecturers get excited in regards to the new faculty 12 months all through the world, it’s crucial to proceed to publicize the dire training wants of Ukrainian youngsters.
Along with the bodily destruction of college infrastructure, there are shortages of provides from laptops to textbooks. Some lecturers have needed to bodily defend their colleges as Russian invaders entered.
Professors have been giving lectures from the entrance strains. Others have been instructing in particular person from shelters, the place air-raid sirens wail. The dedication of the lecturers in wartime is heroic.
College students are the way forward for any nation. The training of scholars in Ukraine, as had been going down earlier than the invasion in February, is important to the rebuilding of the nation. They deserve our help. As do their lecturers.
Anna Nagurney
Amherst, Mass.
The author is the Eugene M. Isenberg chair in integrative research, College of Massachusetts Amherst, and co-chair of the board of administrators of the Kyiv Faculty of Economics.
To the Editor:
Re “Defying the Supreme Court,” by David Leonhardt (The Morning publication, Aug. 4):
These, like me, rejoicing over the overwhelming rejection in Kansas of a measure to permit banning abortion there should curb their enthusiasm. The result of that referendum might exemplify the adage “Watch out what you ask for; you may get it.”
That Kansas voters refused to allow their legislature to roll again ladies’s reproductive rights performs into the narrative of the Supreme Court docket’s rationale within the Dobbs v. Jackson Ladies’s Well being Group case, wherein the justices reasoned that choices on ladies’s management over their very own our bodies must be left to every of the states.
By demonstrating that this tenet can work to guard particular person rights, the Kansas vote might bolster the states’ rights argument underlying the Dobbs resolution. It might be invoked to justify the inclination of the supermajority radicals on the courtroom to rethink choices involving contraception and same-sex marriage, amongst different issues, as advocated within the Dobbs case by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Marshall H. Tanick
Minneapolis
The author is a lawyer.
