Your recent editorial (“Having postal police on patrol could make the job safer for mail carriers”) in favor of a new law lifting the restrictions on the U.S. Postal Service Police is way off the mark.
First of all, there are over a half million employees of this agency, which has a terrible history of controlling workplace violence. (Remember the old phrase “going postal?”) These incidents have all but vanished since their officers have been concentrated on where the problem was. Remember, postal staff have just as much right to a safe environment as everyone else.
SEND LETTERS TO: letters@suntimes.com. To be considered for publication, letters must include your full name, your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes. Letters should be a maximum of approximately 375 words.
Second, aren’t you the same newspaper that consistently calls for better police-community relations? What makes you believe that putting federal police in local communities where they don’t know anybody, can’t enforce local laws and have a narrowly focused goal of protecting only a few persons will help?
Nothing is stopping any of them from applying to local police departments if they really want to expand their horizons and are willing to trade in their federal pay and privileges for the satisfaction of truly serving all members of the public.
Finally, the fact that powerful politicians in Washington want this new so-called “reform” law does not obligate you or anyone else to support it. Remember, they work for the public and not the other way around. The public need should always take priority over special interests, especially when protection from criminal violence is at stake.
David L. Milligan, Portage Park
Will 2024 be the year we lose our republic?
Thank you for publishing the op-ed ”Checks and balances won’t save us from Trump” by Mona Charen. Ms. Charen meticulously goes through each branch of government that has failed us in the past when it comes to following our Constitution and reigning in Trump. She gives credit to the precious few individuals who put the Constitution first and then were either voted out of office, had their lives threatened or both.
This piece should be required reading for every eligible voter. It will not be read by most voters, however, since seeking the truth seems to be an old-fashioned notion.
The sad part of this piece is she puts the power of checking the next presidency of Trump in the hands of the voters. About 100 million eligible voters did not cast a vote for president in 2016, and 75 million did the same in 2020.
This means the cult of Trump voters, while not a majority, will have even more power. Do these folks know that we have a Constitution? Have they ever read it? If so, do they care that the 2nd Article gives few absolute powers to the president?
I am extremely worried about the future of our democracy. Voters are ill-informed and unaware of our awesome history of how extremist factions are balanced with reason. Young people do not see the point of voting.
Ben Franklin told reporters after the Constitution was written and voted on that we had “a republic, if we can keep it.” Is 2024 the year we will lose it?
Jan Goldberg, Riverside
