Letters to the Editor 04-13-1998
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
- Prosecutor's Race - Weapons Ban
Prosecutor's Race
Editor, Times-Union:So many questions; still no answers.
Michael J. Stork recently wrote a very nice letter about his friend, David Kolbe. Along with the obligatory repetition of numbers, he claimed his friend is "not a good politician." I disagree. Prosecutor Kolbe is the consummate pol. His ability to sidestep difficult questions and slant the truth rivals that of Bill Clinton. Manipulating the media, spewing statistics without proper contest, and using emotionally-laden issues to one's political advantage are behaviors Americans despise in D.C. officials. Yet it seems the incumbent Kosciusko County prosecutor can readily engage in these practices, while his supporters look the other way.
Mr. Stork believes Mr. Kolbe has never lost a case "that has received public exposure in the press or television." Think about this for a moment. Every doctor occasionally loses a patient. Every athlete occasionally loses a game. No one hits the bull's-eye every time - unless he's standing way too close to the target. How much time do you suppose Mr. Kolbe spends carefully orchestrating exactly what he wants the public to see and hear? He certainly expended immense energy "spinning" my family's case for the press. Think about the way he runs his business through the media. Other Indiana attorneys have said they are embarrassed by his blatant grandstanding. If a situation can put David Kolbe in the spotlight, he'll pursue it - and boastfully promote himself while doing so. Do you suppose if my family had launched a very visible "Justice for Kemo" campaign, Mr. Kolbe would have conducted a thorough investigation of my brother's death and treated his widow and parents more appropriately?
And why did Mr. Kolbe try that highly publicized child neglect case himself? Wasn't his deputy prosecutor originally handling it (Times-Union, March 28, 1997)? Here's another sign of a true politician: Gaining election-year approval and political glory by seizing an already-established hot issue and making it his own.
Although Mr. Kolbe's friends accuse those who disagree with them of being "whiners" (March 23) and of "bashing" the prosecutor (March 24), I commend Perry Hunter and Michael Speigle for rationally and intelligently articulating several legitimate concerns about the prosecuting attorney's actions. But where's Mr. Kolbe's response?
Martin Luther King Jr. is credited with the idea that the measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort, but where he stands in times of challenge. Everyone knows where David Kolbe stands in times of comfort: Right beside a reporter. He's been challenged to address a number of issues raised by my family, law enforcement and his constituents. He stands behind a wall of silence and a crowd of supporters who resort to name-calling and regurgitation of prepared, redundant numbers. If you plan to vote for Mr. Kolbe, please do this first: Insist that he directly and honestly answer the questions he's been avoiding. If he does so, perhaps he's worthy of your allegiance. If he refuses to be truthful and forthright, then just what is the measure of this man?
Teresa Petrosky Wallace
Casper, Wyoming
Weapons Ban
Editor Times-Union:President Clinton announced on April 6 a broad ban on the importation of certain semi-automatic rifles because they do not meet the requirements for "sporting use." These rifles weren't for "sporting use," according to the administration, because they could be fitted with "large" magazines or clips.
This "sporting use" strategy was used before. The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test. Section 25(1) of that Law proclaimed: "It is forbidden to manufacture... and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled...beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities..." Section 21 of the Nazi Law (and its enforcing regulations) employed the "sporting use" exception also where they permitted licensed persons to carry "firearms, designed for (and usually used for) the hunting of fair game."
Clinton continued by saying: "Our administration has concluded that the import of assault weapons that use large-capacity military magazines should be banned. As everyone knows, you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting. You don't need an AK 47 to go skeet shooting. These are military weapons, weapons of war. They were never meant for a day in the country, and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets."
When they brand us as "gun nuts" and "wackos" for standing up for our rights, remember what an old liberal Democrat named Senator Hubert H. Humphrey said: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
And isn't that what the Second Amendment means, Mr. Clinton?
Daniel Stevens
Warsaw
[[In-content Ad]]
- Prosecutor's Race - Weapons Ban
Prosecutor's Race
Editor, Times-Union:So many questions; still no answers.
Michael J. Stork recently wrote a very nice letter about his friend, David Kolbe. Along with the obligatory repetition of numbers, he claimed his friend is "not a good politician." I disagree. Prosecutor Kolbe is the consummate pol. His ability to sidestep difficult questions and slant the truth rivals that of Bill Clinton. Manipulating the media, spewing statistics without proper contest, and using emotionally-laden issues to one's political advantage are behaviors Americans despise in D.C. officials. Yet it seems the incumbent Kosciusko County prosecutor can readily engage in these practices, while his supporters look the other way.
Mr. Stork believes Mr. Kolbe has never lost a case "that has received public exposure in the press or television." Think about this for a moment. Every doctor occasionally loses a patient. Every athlete occasionally loses a game. No one hits the bull's-eye every time - unless he's standing way too close to the target. How much time do you suppose Mr. Kolbe spends carefully orchestrating exactly what he wants the public to see and hear? He certainly expended immense energy "spinning" my family's case for the press. Think about the way he runs his business through the media. Other Indiana attorneys have said they are embarrassed by his blatant grandstanding. If a situation can put David Kolbe in the spotlight, he'll pursue it - and boastfully promote himself while doing so. Do you suppose if my family had launched a very visible "Justice for Kemo" campaign, Mr. Kolbe would have conducted a thorough investigation of my brother's death and treated his widow and parents more appropriately?
And why did Mr. Kolbe try that highly publicized child neglect case himself? Wasn't his deputy prosecutor originally handling it (Times-Union, March 28, 1997)? Here's another sign of a true politician: Gaining election-year approval and political glory by seizing an already-established hot issue and making it his own.
Although Mr. Kolbe's friends accuse those who disagree with them of being "whiners" (March 23) and of "bashing" the prosecutor (March 24), I commend Perry Hunter and Michael Speigle for rationally and intelligently articulating several legitimate concerns about the prosecuting attorney's actions. But where's Mr. Kolbe's response?
Martin Luther King Jr. is credited with the idea that the measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort, but where he stands in times of challenge. Everyone knows where David Kolbe stands in times of comfort: Right beside a reporter. He's been challenged to address a number of issues raised by my family, law enforcement and his constituents. He stands behind a wall of silence and a crowd of supporters who resort to name-calling and regurgitation of prepared, redundant numbers. If you plan to vote for Mr. Kolbe, please do this first: Insist that he directly and honestly answer the questions he's been avoiding. If he does so, perhaps he's worthy of your allegiance. If he refuses to be truthful and forthright, then just what is the measure of this man?
Teresa Petrosky Wallace
Casper, Wyoming
Weapons Ban
Editor Times-Union:President Clinton announced on April 6 a broad ban on the importation of certain semi-automatic rifles because they do not meet the requirements for "sporting use." These rifles weren't for "sporting use," according to the administration, because they could be fitted with "large" magazines or clips.
This "sporting use" strategy was used before. The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test. Section 25(1) of that Law proclaimed: "It is forbidden to manufacture... and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled...beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities..." Section 21 of the Nazi Law (and its enforcing regulations) employed the "sporting use" exception also where they permitted licensed persons to carry "firearms, designed for (and usually used for) the hunting of fair game."
Clinton continued by saying: "Our administration has concluded that the import of assault weapons that use large-capacity military magazines should be banned. As everyone knows, you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting. You don't need an AK 47 to go skeet shooting. These are military weapons, weapons of war. They were never meant for a day in the country, and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets."
When they brand us as "gun nuts" and "wackos" for standing up for our rights, remember what an old liberal Democrat named Senator Hubert H. Humphrey said: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
And isn't that what the Second Amendment means, Mr. Clinton?
Daniel Stevens
Warsaw
[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092