Wegmans should adopt cage-free policy
While the University of Rochester is proving to be a leader on farm animal welfare, Wegmans seems to be headed in the opposite direction (“Wegmans should follow UR’s example,” Sept. 29).
Wegmans is refusing to follow the lead of University of Rochester and discontinue its sale of eggs from caged birds. These hens are confined in cages so packed they can’t even spread their wings. They never touch the ground, nest or even breathe fresh air.
Students at UR should be thrilled that their school has taken a stand against farm animal abuse. Wegmans customers should request that their store act in a socially responsible manner and end its sale of eggs from caged birds.
-Paul ShapiroHumane Society of the United States
Sansky deemed too inflammatory
Eric Sansky’s article, while providing an interesting alternative perspective on absence of Democratic leadership at the recent protest, crossed the line from rhetoric to inflammatory polemic in two important respects. The first is that Cindy Sheehan was referred to as “the ditch witch.” This description was distractingly offensive and seems designed merely to glibly entertain those who agree and infuriate those who do not.
The second, and, I think more problematic issue is the attribution of the Tom Andrews quote. He is cited as “[running] the leftist lie machine Win Without War.” To accuse Tom Andrews of operating a fraudulent organization is a substantive allegation, and while that accusation would be acceptable in the context of an article arguing that Win Without War promotes inaccuracies and lies, it is utterly inappropriate to print the accusation without any support.
Apart from it being an unrelated and unsubstantiated attack, it is simply unproductive for Sansky to try and discredit Andrews, since he is quoting something Andrews said in support of his point.
-Lewis PowellClass of 2005
Mourning deserves respect
I find the vast majority of Eric Sansky’s thoughts on the Democratic party both hilarious and inaccurate, highlighted by his snide, know-it-all tone.
But I won’t even get into that. What I am deeply offended by is his belief that there is such a thing as a way “to mourn properly and respectfully.” How dare you suggest that your idea of mourning is the only acceptable way.
Grief is a personal, painful thing, and the circumstances surrounding the death of an individual impact how their loved ones react.
Certainly a young soldier being killed in combat versus an elderly person dying of natural causes are going to leave friends and family filled with different thoughts and feelings.
What one grieving mother chooses to do in the face of the untimely death of her 24 year old son is, quite frankly, none of your business.
Just as it is no one’s business to critique your choice to mourn “properly and respectfully” the death of a loved one. We do not live in a world that is black and white. In many instances, “right” and “wrong” can be found somewhere inbetween, in the many shades of grey that are present in all issues.
There is no room in grief and mourning for partisan politics and close minded opinions from anyone. Regardless of political views, those who have lost loved ones in any circumstances – war, hurricane, terrorist attack or terminal illness – have the right to honor that loss however they see fit.
I hope that he can at least rethink this opinion on death and the grieving process and extricate it from his politics. The rest of his politics are best filed under “lost cause.”
-Lauren J. GaffneyClass of 2001
