MONDAY'S LETTERS: Bush's Comma, Connecticut Democrats and Lieberman, BALCO Leak and the Grand...

In today's letters, readers respond to President Bush's "comma" comment about the Iraq war, a voice against out-of-state newspapers who criticize Connecticut Democrats' decision to boot Joe Lieberman, and a critic of the San Francisco Chronicle BALCO team says the reporters deserve to be prosecuted for publishing leaked grand jury testimony.

***

Let Connecticut Decide Who to Vote For

The voters of Connecticut, of whom I'm one, have the right to choose whom we think would best represent US in Congress. The majority of the people who bothered to vote in the Democrats' primary decided that Lieberman didn't, anymore, and probably wouldn't in the future. They said "no" to Joe. How Connecticut residents vote is their business.

For any out-of-state newspaper to suggest we have some kind of obligation to elect someone who doesn't represent our views "for the good of the country" is absurd, especially when it has nothing but praise for all the Republicans who so eagerly trash their own candidate to swarm around the alleged Democrat.

Adela Hubers
Norfolk, Conn.



President Bush's 'Comma,' and Greg Mitchell's Response


To little George I think it means "gee [comma] I wish what I have done would just go away."

Grant Fehr



Thank you sir, for an excellent response to Bush's flippant attitude to the war he created. Just before reading your editorial I almost went to the whitehouse.gov site to write something like: "Comma? You bastard, bastard, bastard, ... " with thoughts of typing "bastard" out 3000 times but decided it probably would overfill their comments board alloted to an email. Your "period" says it even better.

Robert Humphries
Basel, Switzerland



Thank you for your "Comma" piece. That was outstanding. Your "Period"ic ending got me right where it hurts. A brilliant -- but tragic -- ending.

Thank you for educating the populace -- and thinking out loud with the words you create. (I know: Something Punctuation Boy does not engage in on a daily basis.)

Pamela Ross
Dix Hills, N.Y.



Cheers for your commentary on Mr. Bush's "comma" reference. Your recommended use of the period reminds me of a lengthy ellipse, which could be followed by an appropriate quote for those remanding the ambiguous and elusive "victory" in Iraq.

"Dead men have no victory." -- Euripides, The Phoenician Women (c. 411 - 409 B.C.).

Troy Moore
New York, N.Y.



... Perhaps instead of referring to a "comma" (or whatever he meant), we should consider ellipses ("...") to indicate any thoughts that evidently emerge from the White House. And even so, the marks used to indicate a quotation are sometimes referred to as "inverted commas." There is indeed an indication of a late September (preceding October) surprise with so much attention to minutia like the form of punctuation to use. Ellipses are my choice, given there is a break (or omission) indicated to be followed by something else, usually another trickling tributary to the stream of consciousness, not necessarily evidence of conscientiousness as being conscious shows only potential.

Ellipses approximate what is becoming more and more the truth of the matter, that of the United States and the "West" overall sliding into eclipses, with all light either blocked or blinding, further suggesting
some truth to the old adage, "Baffle them with BU**SH** if unable to dazzle them with brilliance." ...

Alamaine, IVe
Grand Forks, N.D.




Enough About the Reporters, What About the Grand Jury?

I hate to see journalists jailed, but I believe journalists need to take a broader view with the potential of two San Francisco Chronicle journalists being jailed for not disclosing their sources for a series of stories around the BALCO investigation.

Chronicle executive vice-president and editor Phil Bronstein told the AP: "It's a tragedy that the government seeks to put reporters in jail for doing their job."

Perhaps we should be worrying about what leaked grand jury testimony does to the GRAND JURY SYSTEM instead of just what it does to journalists.

Grand jury hearings are pretty one-sided affairs. If it is OK to leak and print information from a grand jury hearing, will that hinder the public's willingness to testify? Barry Bonds has been found guilty in the sports talk show world based on the report. Is that fair to the legal system? If it is OK to print leaked grand jury testimony, then why not print leaked information on children's sex abuse cases, publicly withheld evidence from murder cases or personnal information on rape victims?

There is a clear role for anonymous sources in journalism. But that role has been bastardized over the past 20 years to the point of eroding the public's faith in reporting.

Too often, the media has been spun by "anonymous" policitical, legal, businesses and social leaders. Often, the early stories do not stand the test of time.

The truth, especially in legal circles, takes time to emerge. Perhaps there are times were patience is the more credible path for journalists to take.

As the adage suggest: Having the right to print something does not mean it is right to print it.

Steve Fountain
Fond du Lac, Wis.