Fine points of grammar - and more letters to the editors

Fine points of grammar - and more letters to the editors

February 12th, 2014 in Opinion Letters

Fine points of grammar

I can't stand to hear somebody say: "I'm good." I told the girl at the bank today: What if you weren't doing good -- would you say: "I'm bad?" Where does this junk come from?

If my English teachers heard me talk English like that, they would run me out of town. We had some good teachers at East Ridge. Mrs. Eva Counts, Mr. Patrick O'Shee, Mrs. Mary Feezell and Mrs. Jean Pracht.

I have heard people on TV say: "Becuzz," and they are supposed to be intelligent, including our president. Bush said it, too, and he's from Texas.

What about people who use the word "like" 30 times in a sentence (not just teens).

Why do people want to be the in-crowd and copy each other?

I can remember when people used to say: How are you? I'm fine, how are you? I'm doing well, thank you.

Remember Bill Cosby saying, "Try to talk like you've got some sense!" I would vote for him for president.

PHILIP OSBORNE


Fund pensions, not airplanes

President Obama should use his executive power to reverse the unfair cuts to veterans' pensions. These men and women earned their benefits through years, even decades, of service. What they've earned, no one should be able to take away.

Why not cut elsewhere instead? For example, the Pentagon is currently throwing billions away every year on its most expensive contract ever: the $1.5 trillion Joint Strike Fighter.

Every year, this troubled plane gets grounded due to technical glitches, runs over budget due to redesigns and falls further behind its schedule. Its test pilots say it could get shot down easily in a dogfight. Yet it gets full funding.

Leaders in Washington should get hold of these out-of-control programs before they cut a single penny from veterans' benefits.

GEORGE L. JEANTETE, lieutenant colonel, retired, U.S.


In support of traditional families

As municipalities across the country rush to get "on the right side of history" by extending benefits to same-sex couples, they should first answer the question: "Why should the sexual nature of homosexual couples privilege them over nonsexual friends or roommates who live together for economic reasons."

Once cities bend to the former, in time, they will be forced to bend to the latter. In fact, it's already happening in the area of adoption.

Recently, a Manhattan judge ruled that a couple, who aren't romantically involved or even living together, could adopt a baby and become its legal parents.

The right side of history, contrary to the mantra of "marriage equality," is not about privileging a sexual orientation but about privileging and strengthening an institution: natural marriage, known by every civilization up to the present to be the best for the nurture and well-being of children.

REGIS NICOLL