LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Are tweets law?
I read an interesting article in the July 27 paper, “Trump tweets ban on transgender troops in U.S. military service”.
Can I assume that this tweet has the same effect as an Executive Order (which is really just another name for a law)? If so, we are heading for a very sad time for our country.
Imagine what it would be like if every tweet or random comment made by the president had the force of law. Put his political opponents in jail? OK. Bomb the suckers? OK. Shut down the IRS? OK. Segregate the military again? OK. All this without even a formal announcement or “signing.”
Now I know there are those who will say that he doesn’t really mean most of what he tweets — he is just blowing off steam; but how are we to know the difference? We won’t. But maybe the “base” really wants a dictator.
Tom Briscoe Milwaukee
If Bayside is happy...
I read with amazement Daniel Bice’s No Quarter column of July 23 (“Official earns over $142K to run village”).
If I read correctly, the Village of Bayside is “very, very pleased with the results” produced by the village administer Andy Pederson. Additionally, he mentored his deputy who eventually found a more challenging job in another city.
Why is this front-page news? If the village is highly satisfied with its employee, who cares what his salary and benefits are other than the village voters? Not the rest of us in southeast Wisconsin. I think this article was very demeaning to the individual and the village.
If you want to do a dissertation about a person’s worth versus his/her salary and benefits, then do it in the sports pages.
William J. Kante Menomonee Falls
Trump conspiracy?
Birthing a new conspiracy should not be this easy.
Take an election — one party takes the popular vote by over 3 million votes while the other party takes fewer but more strategic votes. Then with the inherent quirks (or faults) of the Electoral College system, the winner then gets the “booby” prize and not the presidency.
The winner takes office, and there occurs a strange turn. The president then lets it be known that he is miffed (or curious or maybe piqued) that he got so many fewer popular votes. Was this massive voter fraud?
The president then forms the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to investigate. This commission establishes the need for information for a database. It figures to use voter names, addresses, partial Social Security numbers and voting history back to 2006. This from all 50 states for all voters.
The scope of what is to be done makes my head spin. Imagine all the mischief that could be done with that much information and a big computer.
I’m on the back side of the curve here, but it should be interesting.
Jeffrey E. Becker
St. Francis