Print edition: 
Tweet scenario reeks of bullying
Now that the excitement about Emma Sullivan’s tweet has died down, I would venture to guess that Sullivan will be slow to use derogatory language about anyone in a public venue again. I am willing to bet that she feels badly about her tweet. I think she realizes now that it is not honorable to disparage another person in public, even if you disagree with him (a misdemeanor of youth).
On the other hand, I think that Shawnee Mission East High School principal Karl Krawitz and the governor’s spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, have a lot of explaining to do. According to Sullivan, Krawitz held her in his office for about an hour, scolding her and intimidating her with his authority and then ordering her to write letters of apology. Afterward, she clearly felt she had no other option but to write the apology, regardless of her First Amendment rights. This whole scenario reeks of bullying.
Jones-Sontag should be ashamed of herself for embarrassing everyone with her malicious behavior.
JOHN R. RENNER
Haysville
Derisive words
Why was a young lady using offensive language in describing a political figure? One of the words she tweeted is all too common, in my opinion. “Words describe one’s character” was the lesson my two parents (teachers) gave me.
If this young woman learns that she brought credit upon herself, political club and school, she has received the wrong message. She has shown some humility and deserves some slack.
The school had a fair policy. She didn’t follow it. Will a student throw a shoe at the next event?
What about her mother? Is she approving of the use of this word? What about her sister?
Disagreeing politically doesn’t provide cover. There is too much hatred in our political system already. Debate ideas and leave the derisive words alone.
Webster says a “twit” is a foolish or annoying person. Choose words carefully or you may become a twit.
DAVID WEIHE
Rose Hill
KPERS concerns
I believe the reason state Rep. Mitch Holmes, R-St. John, receives e-mails and letters isn’t because Kansas Public Employees Retirement System members are misinformed but because they are concerned about what the reform commission will recommend (“KPERS objectives,” Nov. 11 Letters to the Editor).
It has been mentioned several times that everything is on the table. This would imply that everything includes present benefits. The reason that those currently receiving benefits are “safe” is because there is a legal obligation to fulfill promises made to the retired, and the Legislature must fund the $8 billion unfunded liability and any new shortfalls resulting from closing the current plan.
Can the state of Kansas afford to operate two pension plans, when the current problem comes from its lack of contribution to the fund while KPERS employees made their contributions on time every year?
A change on the currently working has been discussed. The reason it has not been discussed in greater detail is the serious legal question around the mandatory contract that must be signed by the employee in order to work for any KPERS-associated entity.
If you want to check how this will affect you, go to websites that have your best interest in mind, such as www.ksretirees.org and www.keepingthekansaspromise.com.
GERALD SCHMITT
Wichita
Care for river
I applaud the efforts of my Wichita City Council member, Janet Miller, who spoke out in favor of responsible actions by the city to protect the Arkansas River (“City tries to scrape past on clean water,” Nov. 23 Eagle).
Though I am aware that money speaks, it is troubling to view attitudes on the part of some that would value short-term gain over long-term investment in the health and welfare of people and natural resources. I appreciate Miller’s clear vision in this matter.
I am grateful to be living in the historic Midtown neighborhood, where rain gardens and rain barrels have been installed and are visible reminders that we care. More people need to realize that such simple actions on the part of ordinary citizens — such as strategically planting native plants in a shallow depression or installing a rain barrel under a downspout or rain chain — can make a big difference in the quest for reduced and cleaner rain runoff.
I urge citizens who care about the Arkansas River to see what low-cost measures they can make at home, and help our entire City Council to take a second look at its approach to this matter.
MARGARET ANN HOLCOMB
Wichita
Vote them out
As almost every citizen knows, today’s Congress has done a lousy job of resolving the debt crisis. Why? Because most of the members of Congress today are the same members whose actions over the past 10 years have brought about this crisis. And in spite of that, they have not changed their minds or positions.
For nearly every election, voters re-elect more than 90 percent of the incumbents. Today, for good reason, Congress has an approval rating of less than 20 percent. It is clear that we have elected congressmen who are not interested in compromising and who do not reflect the interests of voters.
What’s the solution? Next year don’t again re-elect 90 percent of the incumbents. Elect new congressmen. We need a totally new government to resolve our debt crisis, as has been necessary for Greece, Italy and Spain.
SAM KNECHT
Wichita
Too much power
At a time when transparency regarding political issues is vitally important, let’s call the signing of the Grover Norquist tax pledge what it really is: a “continuing-my-political-career” insurance plan.
Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, has made it crystal clear that if a GOP legislator either does not sign his pledge to absolutely never support any increase in taxes or, having signed it, then supports a tax increase in any form, that person will face an opponent in the next primary election who has signed the pledge. This opponent will then be vigorously financially supported by Norquist’s organization with the sole purpose of defeating the renegade who dared to disregard the sacred pledge.
Americans, and especially Republicans, ought to be greatly alarmed by the very notion that any one individual can create such a stranglehold on the process for determining who should be qualified to represent them. That a single criterion — under no circumstance will a tax increase be appropriate — should arbitrarily dominate whether a legislator is qualified to govern is at least dangerous, potentially devastating, to the democratic process.
JOHN H. WILSON
Wichita
Shameful history
A few centuries ago our ancestors came to this country, brutalized its inhabitants and stole their land. Today we’re upset because our neighbors to the south are peacefully infiltrating “our” land in search of a better life for their families. Some of this land was even stolen from them in the first place.
Those immigrants who survive the journey, elude the authorities and successfully find work are some of the hardest workers you’ll ever find. They cheerfully perform — for minimal pay — the nastiest, most bone-breaking chores that “Americans” won’t willingly do.
Given our shameful history, what in God’s name makes us think we have the right to deny “equal opportunity” to these people?
CHERYL RILEY
Potwin
