April 20, 2008 04:00 am China, Tibet, Olympics I can understand that there are many people upset about China's occupation of Tibet. What I do not understand is what the Olympics have to do with freeing Tibet. The Olympics are a sporting event and protesting the sacred event of running the torch will more than likely not force China to leave Tibet alone. If they want to protest and try to make a difference, why don't they go to China and hang their banners outside the government buildings. Don't attack the people holding the torch who have absolutely nothing to do with China except wanting to run around a track in their country. In my opinion, China has no right to be in Tibet, but protesting the running of the torch will not help matters at all. Protesters need to leave the runners alone and find a way to get their point across without interrupting an event that is irrelevant to their cause. Eric Freudigman Boater dispute I am a long-distance swimmer whose bay was taken away by boats tethered close to shore. There is a veritable parking lot of boats here all summer, a South Airport of vehicles restricting access to the bay. I've been "shooed" back to shore when daring to explore deeper waters. In past summers my neighbors and I would bring our kids to play in the sand and on noodles in the bay. Now we must drive some distance to replace what used to be a walk away. How can a minority prevent the majority from enjoying our Traverse City beaches? Last summer another area was eked out for swimming by the volleyball courts. Boaters rebelled and the area was subsequently reduced. They have the entire bay in which to play while we're restricted to cordoned-off areas of shallow water. A fellow swimmer met boaters complaining about the new area. My friend suggested they moor further out. They explained they'd risk getting wet on trips to shore. May I suggest another sport, then? Perhaps golf. Absent an errant sprinkler, they'd be less likely to get wet. Anna Norris Ban immoral facilities The idea that banning porn is not constitutional is absurd. I have nothing against Mr. Vannatter (Record-Eagle story, April 11) in pursuing wealth, but not at the expense of the familial role in our society. The role is very dysfunctional, at this point, and not becoming any healthier. Pornography is a factor in this epidemic and allowing it to become and to be instilled as a source of anxiety is irresponsible. Sex is not a thrill, it's a physical act. If treated as such, then how do we as a society learn how to love and share that love? By endorsing the act of impersonal sex? Or by showing our children and society that we love one another and make love with one another? The destruction of families needs to stop and banning immoral facilities is a step toward healing the broken lives and families that deserve the chance to know real love. Shane Balkcom Homework for voters I applaud the Record-Eagle for doing its homework. The editors took note of the news article about the 11 percent cut in federal funds for the Head Start program. At the same time they point out the $12 billion of our money being spent on the war in Iraq every single month. Find out how every candidate for state and national office would spend your money. Would they be in favor of allocating funds to educate their public -- or to increase the weaponry arsenal? Would they prefer to control and invade other countries -- or build a flourishing, enlightened society at home? Now, do your homework. Jill Webb
—
Traverse City
The author is a senior at Traverse City High School.
Traverse City
Kingsley
Maple City
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.