Editor, Times-Union: I find it a very strange use of statistics by A. Richard Wine (letter 11/29) to present the whitetail deer in a bad light by using 1801-1900 statistics, which at best probably were woefully incomplete and inaccurate due to lack of present-day communication.
Also, back then there were vastly fewer people and infinitesimally less mobility from place to place by those fewer people compared with today. There are huge differences, which make it impossible to compare oranges with oranges in this manner.
To say that deer are beginning to "creep into our urban areas" is really an astonishing statement. For many years we humans have been "ramming into the deer's rural areas." Look at all the stupid housing developments that money-hungry rich people are constantly starting. We are forcing the deer to forage for food in developed areas, because we are constantly stealing thousands of acres of their land, just like we stole the Indians' land years ago.
Then there is the matter of so many cars constantly on rural roads going to their rural development homes. No wonder there are so many more deer hit than 10 years ago. The rural roads are far more heavily travelled today than 10 years ago. I really doubt the validity of statistics on deer population, if even part of the basis for that population estimate is the number of deer hit compared to three to four years ago, when many of these housing developments did not exist.
Finally, there is the matter of a great majority of people totally disregarding the speed limit. I religiously drive the exact speed limit using my cruise control. Almost everybody whizzes past me. Deer don't have a chance against a society that refuses to have any restraints on their lives such as a speed limit.
I feel the deer, rather than being the problem, are the victims, having a hard time dodging the bullet-drivers who menace their lives on their ever-shrinking "reservation."
Chuck Orlando, via e-mail Warsaw Legal Opinion Editor, Times-Union: I must assert, I watched with some dismay at the diatribe presented by Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer about their tenure and influence on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
It wasn't their influence that bothered me, rather it was the arrogance with which they approached law. These two people were extremely proud of their place in history, they never acknowledged once that they were supposed to be "of and by and for the people." They just simply raised their own precious concerns.
Justice Breyer simply was proud that the court could discuss cases without any emotion, that they could come to a conclusion of "law" without emotion or any particular case invading that process.
Justice O'Connor was extremely upset that more than 50 percent of Americans thought that judges were "simply politicians in robes."
I submit to you readers, where else do you find these two opinions? Is there law? Of course there is, so Justice Breyer must be correct. However, is there justice? Rarely, and that is why Justice O'Connor is upset, she thinks we should just take the crap that the courts dispense.
Things may be "legal," but, that never means that they are "just." Justice is sadly lacking in our legal system. We know that. Apparently, those two haven't figured that out. Sleep well, Justice O'Connor, you have served the people to death, not well, but to death.
Justice Breyer, I doubt you will ever wake.
Jeff Harding Warsaw, via e-mail
Richards Gaffe
Editor, Times-Union: The hot button of the week a few days ago was the comedian Michael Richards' guffaw unlike a W.C. Fields belly laugh.
I can think of hundreds of important issues that should come before naughty words.
I listened to the Jesse Jackson/Richards show on Jackson's "Keep Hope Alive" show. The irony to me was Jackson has admitted that in his younger days he routinely spit in white people's food as a restaurant employee. Then their was the Hiemy Town gaff a few years ago referring to New York City.
Richards, who is Jewish, failed to bring up these points, but when you are groveling I guess it makes sense.
I don't have these problems about PC behavior. I am an absolutist on total free speech of any kind. My opposition then says but crying fire in a crowded theater should be illegal. But I say, what if there is a fire in the theater and the film is so bad everybody is asleep? By law, should I not wake them? Or even morally, should I leave them sleep?
Bottom line, if you go to an event that will consist of hundreds of foul words and sick jokes, just shut up and take it. If Richards had gone to the black man's house and knocked on the door and then screamed obscenities through the door, most would say that's just not cricket.
But in a comedy club where offensive language is the normal verbiage, you get what you pay for, sissy!
Tom Metzger Warsaw, e-mail Missing Dogs Editor, Times-Union: I must apologize to Luke and Nancy for the loss of their valued pet, I share their grief.
I called them to ask, and probably offended Luke in the process, but wanted to know how their dog got away from their sphere of influence. I share many property owners' dismay at the number of strays that come onto my property. If anyone sees one of my dogs loose, I hope they will tell me and tell me more than once, but that is not likely to happen. I watch my dogs very closely because I understand the danger.
Luke told me that his dog never left his property, that the perpetrators of this crime came onto his property. In fact, in his garage. I'll stand with Luke in this case ... if anyone can give me a clue to who would have done this, I'll help find them.
I am livid about dog stuff in my yard, my dogs will only defecate in their area, "the pen" out behind my house. Now that I've said that, the "pup" is not neutered. He likes to "anoint" everything, he is a very expensive dog and very young, we are working on the "anointing." He's trainable.
I want to reassert, if anyone knows who might have attacked these folks' dog in this manner, let me know.
