Matt Hayes’ column on court appointed guardians who steal from their elderly clients was an eye opener for many Foxnews.com readers, while Wendy McElroy’s column on the shoddy data behind much feminist research -- and the cultural myths created by it -- also moved many readers to respond.
Melana Vickers’ condemnation of the view that decreasing American military force would strengthen the United States’ relationships with its allies, and Steve Milloy’s debunking of the dangers of dietary salt, also provoked vigorous responses.
Here is a sample from this week’s mail.
In response to Behind the Bar: Who’s Guarding the Guardians?
Patricia Sanders writes:
It seems to me your emphasis is on the unscrupulous lawyers. I would agree they are part of the problem, but what outrages me is the fact that these judges allow this and approve what these lawyers are doing. I have been victimized on two different fronts by judges in the civil arena, and there is no accountability for the judge. There is, however, plenty for me, but not for the anointed or the wrongdoer for that matter. In a perfect world, the lawyers guilty of bilking people would not be allowed to do so. They would be stopped by the people really responsible for rewarding their behavior: the judges.
Bryan Wallace writes:
Are our laws so convoluted that intelligent citizens can't understand and defend their own rights? If so, am I the only one that sees this as a problem? I'm sure the lawyer's union would disagree with me, but then again, if there were such a thing as the Unified Petty Thieves Local 187 or the Common Criminals Association, they'd tell you that burglary, larceny, embezzlement and bamboozlement are basic tenets of American society too.
Anonymous writes:
Lest we forget that the judges did their time as attorneys prior to being elected or appointed as justices? There are some in every race, religion, gender and profession who make it bad for the rest; however, in the profession of attorneys at law, the remaining ethical sector hovers around a mere 10 percent. Do you have data relating to how many CEOs who have been indicted in the past 20 years were formerly attorneys for those corporations? It's astounding! …These shysters go on to become judges, legislators and senators. Is it any wonder this country is going to hell in an expensive and well-disguised hand-basket?
Connie Peterson writes:
Can you tell me if the judges who approve these types of charges lean more predominantly toward the liberal or conservative? Is that information even available? I did not realize that lawyers were being this unscrupulous; in spite of all the horrid lawyer jokes I hear.
In response to Ifeminists:
Carl King writes:
The facts don't really matter. The more fat in the fire, the hotter the debate and the more people want to be informed (or misinformed, as the case may be). People sitting down together and having a rational discussion is boring. No one would watch investigative reporting about that. The more screaming and yelling and sensationalism, then the higher the ratings. Anyone can tell a lie with a flip of the tongue. Proving it is a lie requires a lot of research and work. The news media (and the public) have gone on to another story by then and have lost interest. Remember Dr. Joseph Gobbels: "If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it."
David Sederbaum writes:
Women’s rights need responsible advocates. They should be people that not only understand the problems facing women, but also state facts accurately and speak to the public in a responsible manner to achieve the greater good. Creating an equal society is the goal, in my opinion. The goal of feminism should not be to alienate men and exaggerate the ills facing women. The facts can speak for themselves on those matters. The goal should be to educate society. The goal should be positive change.
Dylan Rovere writes:
I agree that the PC movement has become mired in pointless and distracting identity politics but by implying that modern feminism has lost its way is to practice exactly what you condemn. If anyone has betrayed the feminist movement, it is modern journalism. The tabloid-style reporting and the "if it bleeds, it leads" practices of the "infotainment" industry is not conducive to accurate and fair reporting of current feminism for one reason only: It's not an easy sell.
In response to Defense Central:
Blair Peterson writes:
Thank you for your critique of the puzzling push to restrict U.S. military dominance. Proponents of this idea ignore history and human nature. This ludicrous concept illustrates just how naive and clueless these people are…Thank goodness the administration currently occupying the White House would laugh this concept out onto Pennsylvania Ave.
Karl Uppiano writes:
I think you could make the argument that diplomatic options only delay the inevitable with more devastating consequences when it finally comes down to military options.
C.W. Armbrust writes:
Dominance-lite? These nameless faces of the advocates have no compunction about sending Americans to their death. To them, the loss of an individual, especially one in defense of our nation, means nothing as long as we "play fair." Make no mistake: these voices advocating voluntarily compromising our abilities are voices of cowards and of the enemy trying to weaken the forces of liberty. The only way to prevent war is to prepare for war. If we leave no doubt to the power and ability of our forces, along with fair and judicial application of force to defend and support our allies and freedom, I assure you that the world would be a much safer and maybe even nicer place.
Susan Frazier writes:
Those of us who served in the military fully recognized the underhanded and overt
attempts by Clinton and his crowd to reduce the military and weaken it during his
time in office. He continues these efforts today. Those of us who were in the military during his time in office respected the office, but not the person in office. We saluted him as our commander-in-chief out of respect for the office, but not out of respect for him. He and his crowd considered /consider the rest of the nation's people as being beneath contempt and as uneducated to his level. He's definitely mistaken.
In response to Junk Science:
Wes Stephenson writes:
The "DASH-Sodium" diet study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in January 2001 showed a reduction of sodium intake in conjunction with the DASH diet produced a significant reduction in blood pressure. Those participants with high blood pressure had the greatest reduction. This appears to be a health benefit to reducing salt intake since elevated blood pressure is known to cause many health problems.
Jim Mayfield writes:
As a private consumer of health care and food, your interpretation of the article may be correct. However, from a public health perspective, you fail to make a case. Assuming that the low sodium diet recommended by your "nannies" does not adversely affect your health (rather than your sensibilities), it may be less costly for society to encourage the general population to reduce its salt consumption than it is to accurately identify "salt sensitive" individuals for whom low-sodium diets are beneficial.
Helen Baker writes:
A normal healthy person can tolerate some extra salt in their diet, but when they stop being normal and healthy as some of us do when we age, it becomes difficult to give up all that salt that we are used to flavoring our food with. I, personally, would love to go out to eat without having to deal with excessively salty foods that don't have to be that way. I don't advocate throwing the saltshaker out, but put it on the table where you can choose to use it or not. Do this instead of putting it in the soup where you can't take it out.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox