I'm afraid I have to disagree with the main point of a
Thursday letter (Pitts didn't address the whole problem). He starts by
missing the point of Pitts' analogy (fix what's obviously broken, then
work on other issues). The letter's point is that unless something is
done about 'black on black' crime it will do no good to address the
issue of biased law enforcement. I suppose you could argue that black
perpetrators aren't treated any differently by the police than white
perpetrators but you can't really argue that even if they are, nothing
should be done until 'black on black' crime ceases completely, can you?
There will always be black on black crime, as there will always be
white on black, black on white, white on white, male on female, female
on male, dog on cat (can I stop now?).
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Letter to Editor
Here's my most recent letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal. After years of getting every letter I send in published (even though they hack them up sometimes) I've had my last two not see print. And haven't sent one in two or three months. But anyway, here it is:
The
statement that Pitts finds fault with, 'All Lives Matter,' isn't wrong,
of course, they do. Were it to say All Lives Matter EQUALLY I think
'both sides' could agree. Yes? Or how about, Black lives matter TOO?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
good one
ReplyDeleteThis one they printed ; )
Delete