Regarding “Welden gets 13 years in abortion pill case” (front page, Jan. 28): What John Andrew Welden did was wrong, but we must remember this: Our government allows these types of drugs to be offered to most women “over the counter” for them to “lose” their embryo.
The scene that happened in this federal courtroom is going to be repeated, unfortunately many times, in front of our heavenly judge, but it will involve all who are involved in or who allowed these attacks on God’s little ones.
Regarding “Doctors tossed from Medicare Advantage plans” (front page, Jan. 27): It’s interesting that UnitedHealthcare is dropping thousands of doctors from its networks due to Obamacare. This is the company that is endorsed by AARP, the organization that pushed very hard to get Obamacare passed and that told us seniors we would be better off with Obamacare enacted into law.
Sure glad I dropped AARP back in 2010.
Don’t glorify money
It grieves me to see the Tribune continue to reinforce the money-equals-election formula that has so unfortunately come to dominate our political landscape (“Shimberg tops in contributions,” Metro, Jan. 26). By focusing on the big money-raisers, the Tribune provides them free advertising, enhancing their chance for election. This is most obvious in District 2, where Michael Weston and Sally Harris each rate one sentence (neither of their own comment), while the wealthy Shimberg earns eight paragraphs (several of her own electioneering content).
Forget that Weston and Harris each have real education backgrounds. They are not in front of the money, so the Tribune is not interested. Forget that Weston and Harris will be funding campaigns with small contributions from real people while a great portion of Shimberg’s treasure chest comes from corporations.
The Tribune does this community a great disservice by providing free campaign advertising to the richest candidates. You should cover campaigns first by candidate positions; money raised should be a distant last. Stop helping that it be about the money.
Elections should not be purchased.
Judge by character
I was disappointed to see the article in Sunday’s Tribune once again erroneously equate the candidate who collected the most money to the candidate who is best qualified to serve the people of Hillsborough County. I know for a fact that I am more dimensional than funds raised, and I am thinking the other candidates feel the same way.
Your article seems to give greater value to one’s ability to raise funds from their political and business connections rather than actually covering what the candidates will bring to the position to best serve and lead the people of Hillsborough County. I would hope that the Tribune would better judge the candidates by the content of their character, experiences and work ethic rather than the content of their campaign bank account.
First, it pains me to ask people for money. I know there are a lot of people working hard to cover the cost of raising a family in these difficult times. Second, I am a grassroots candidate.
Who here is satisfied with the political climate locally and nationally? Maybe it is time we judge our candidates by the content of their character and experiences and not by how much money they can raise. For example, according to your logic Charles Brink is going to best serve our students, teachers, and parents, because he has loaned himself $65,000. He has the most money. He wins. The voters need not show up and vote.
I was taught that our government is by the people, for the people and not who has the most money wins. Good government starts in our own backyards with well-informed voters, so let us work on well-informing the voters.
It is important to not short-change the other candidates who are working hard and sacrificing their personal time and finances to create the Hillsborough County we will all be proud of.
The writer is a candidate for the Hillsborough County School Board, District 4.
Shot for being rude?
I had to read Sandra Lowe’s letter in Monday’s Tribune four times to convince myself I wasn’t imagining things (“Movie missiles and rudeness,” Your Views).
Is she really trying to justify the gunning down of a Gulf War vet because he was “rude”? Lowe says people are “tired of dealing with people who have no manners.” She goes as far as to imply the Gulf War vet deserved to be shot, and that if this causes people to stop being rude, it is somehow a good thing.
I wonder if Lowe would think the same thing if one of her children or other family members were gunned down for texting.
Would she have the nerve to look at a young widow and 3-year-old child and say, “Well, he asked for it”?