Letters to the editor: Jan. 15, 2020

Letters+to+the+editor%3A+Jan.+15%2C+2020

Public art on the Millstone Campus 

Regarding the Jan. 8 article “Public art a highlight of reborn Millstone Campus” by Ellen Futterman: We were in Jerusalem when we spied a small 3-D bicyclist sculpture in a store window. We walked into the gallery and a gentleman approached us. 

We told the man that we had a wall of that sports sculpture at “our” Jewish Community Center. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“Are you from St. Louis?” he asked. Yes, we replied. 

The gentleman, David Gerstein, said he had worked with Michael Staenberg to create the mural of bicyclists for the wall connecting the Arts and Education Building with the fitness center.

Alan and Jackie Kofsky, St. Louis


Response to ‘censure’ letter

In his Jan. 8 letter (“Censure could help bypass the impasse”), Burt Newman espouses a number of opinions but, unfortunately, very few facts. 

He offers no facts to support his statements that President Donald Trump stereotypes African-Americans, Hispanics and Muslims and is partly responsible for increased anti-Semitic incidents. In fact, President Trump has strongly denounced anti-Semitism, not only domestically but internationally. The President has been a stalwart in supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.

Newman criticizes the president for disrespecting democratic institutions and for blocking testimony of close advisers during impeachment proceedings. Many presidents, dating back to George Washington, have utilized such a tactic, commonly referred to as “executive privilege.” Bill Clinton used it 14 times and Barack Obama used it at least once. If Democrats wished to pursue these witnesses, they had a process by which to force the administration to permit their testimony, i.e. the courts. Democrats said they felt there was insufficient time to proceed through the courts, but then they have held onto articles of impeachment for almost a month. 

Newman stated that the whistleblower’s identity is protected by federal law. In this instance, he is plainly wrong. The federal Whistleblower Protection Act protects the whistleblower from retaliation only. The whistleblower is, therefore, subject to subpoena for testifying as would any other person. Of course, if the whistleblower chose to defy the subpoena, Republicans would have to use the same remedy available that Democrats eschewed, the courts.

I get it. Burt Newman doesn’t like Trump, maybe even hates him. Once again, that is his right, but he shouldn’t obfuscate his opinions as facts.

Barry Greenberg, Chesterfield