What would Lincoln do?
I was not at all happy to see the headline on the [Durham] cover of the Aug. 12 issue ("You lost. Get over it"). Telling people they are losers is not a way to bring about conviviality and peace. (BTW, the folks who attended that rally are not the losers; their ancestors were.) I have a feeling that even Robert E. Lee would have been kinder. I can't imagine Lincoln saying anything that hurtful either.
In fact, he did say:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Saying, "get over it" smacks of the same attitude as "Make my day!" Not conducive to peace and understanding, but rather, wall building.
I hate what the Confederate flag means to our black sisters and brothers, and to all of us for that matter. We do not need to foster more hate. I'm sure that whoever decided on that headline thought it was clever, but the INDY has a responsibility to promote brother- and sisterhood, not more bad feelings.
As do many, I look to the INDY for accurate information and good vibes wherever possible.
Mary DesHarnais, Cedar Grove
Keep the monuments, honor the slaves
Removal of monuments leaves me cold ("You lost"). A child is more receptive to a little history story when there's a larger-than-life bronze statue to look at. This goes for both the neo-Confederate who wants to wax nostalgic about the "good ol' daze" and somebody like me who explains that a wave of Confederate monuments popped up around the country during the middle of the 20th century in reaction to the civil rights movement. Personally, I'd like the monuments to remain, but the same lawns should start to feature some other statues—statues that honor slaves and other workers who built this country and continue to maintain it.
RabbiOseagHennessy, via indyweek.com
Pointless and dangerous
There really is no viable point to this asinine regulation ("Raleigh bars to city: piss off," Aug. 12). Basically, bars can have 1,000 patrons stand on their sidewalks to smoke but not drink. So, this becomes the end result of the regulation's logic:
• Smokers can't smoke inside. They need to stay outside to smoke.
• Drinkers can't drink outside. They need to stay inside to drink.
• Drinker who smokes? Well ... all I can say is that I sincerely hope that nobody drugs your beverage when you go outside to smoke. (And that is not an exaggeration. This sort of shit happens.)
So, to me, this regulation is actually endangering citizens while protecting or benefiting nobody (except a couple of folks who don't like the noise or dirty sidewalks).And don't even get me started on how this regulation will harm businesses, harm workers, is unfair, is relatively unenforceable. It's just bad, reactionary legislation that will hopefully be changed for the better in three months.
Chromatix, via indyweek.com