Thoughts on police enforcement policies
Police officers perceive themselves to be in constant peril, often with justification. As a result, they are prepared for the worst and often perceive threats that may or may not materialize. This mindset, accompanied by the militarization of police, has contributed to police violence. Minorities, especially African Americans, are treated differently. Those with mental illnesses are also often perceived as a threat. Generally, police violence is more likely to occur if officers see citizens as adversaries. In those instances, "Protect and Serve" is superseded by "Protect Yourself."
With some changes in law enforcement policies and practices at the federal level, police and citizens can be protected; both can be accomplished. Among them:
› Increase police pay and enhance the qualifications for hiring officers.
› Provide standardized, culturally informed training protocols for de-escalation of conflict.
› Eliminate "qualified immunity" for officers, and appoint special, highly qualified review boards to evaluate citizen complaints before civil litigation is allowed.
› Discontinue the practice of stopping and detaining citizens for minor traffic violations. These could be handled electronically.
› Keep a national database of police misconduct so fired officers can't just relocate.
Though the politics of these matters can be complicated, these reforms would create a new police culture that would keep officers and citizens safer.
Tom Bissonette
Use language to accept, convey responsibility
New rule for politicians: Never use the passive voice.
Never say, "Mistakes were made." This implies a nameless, faceless moron acting in error.
Instead, use an active verb and a clear human subject. This could be a personal pronoun, such as "I," or a noun that has a name, such as "Harold," or whoever is the sacrificial peon selected for blame.
I prefer: "I am responsible for the mistakes made under my supervision."
That's leadership.
Helen Barrett
Keep politics, religion out of reproduction
Your photographs on Jan. 23, 2023, featured pictures of two groups protesting on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade illustrate how skewed the fight for reproductive rights is. One picture was of The New Suffragettes, the majority of whom were women, commemorating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The other picture was of four pro-life young men (no women) protesting Roe v. Wade.
Unless you are a partner/husband/doctor, you should have no say in the matter of women's reproductive decisions. And that includes male politicians, most of whom have extraordinarily little understanding of a woman's reproductive system, especially when it comes to miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and other pregnancy related conditions that affect life of the mother and baby.
Women's reproductive rights are the purview of the medical field, not politics, not religion. Period.
Rebecca Rochat
Men, women may not want children
The top story, "Cause for Concern," on the front page of the Jan. 25 edition of the Times Free Press was enlightening.
Those who fought so hard to [remove a constitutional right to] abortion and limit a woman's access to reproductive care are also those who most often bemoan the fact that more and more women are choosing not to have children at all.
Those who want to use government to control a woman's life should read this article. They may well understand that intelligent women are making a very rational choice.
The time is long past when a woman's destiny should be dictated by her biology.
If a woman cannot exercise control over her own body, if she cannot get adequate care, if she is denied all options, the only rational choice, to secure her life and future, is to recognize that she does not have to produce babies to satisfy anyone else.
I wonder why there is so little discussion about the number of men who are making the same choice?
Katheryn A. Thompson
Please get serious about entitlements
Congress is going through the periodic machinations about the national debt and expanding the borrowing limit of the federal government. Most Republicans and a few Democrats believe there should be some restraint. Since the Biden administration came into office, leftist politicians and economists seem to think there should be no limit to the amount of debt our country can incur and still remain on firm financial footings.
These past few years, some Republicans have talked of reforming many entitlements, such as Social Security. The left howls that the GOP is trying to take away our Social Security. Unfortunately, many people of my generation believe that lie. The latest report from those tasked with managing Social Security tells us it will be insolvent in about 10 years. Since there is no lockbox for Social Security deposits and Congress must fill in the gap with appropriations, I'm not sure how they know when it will be insolvent.
Politicians must stop posturing and get serious about the debt and work on reforming Social Security and the other entitlements that suck up most of the federal budget.
Rusty Lacy
Rossville, Ga.