To the Editor:
The article “Aging Leaders Raise a Tough Question: How Old Is Too Old?” (Political Memo, July 29) poses the incorrect question. The real question should be, “Does the person possess the cognitive skills necessary to perform the task or job at hand?” Otherwise, there is an assumption that simply reaching a certain age automatically renders people incapable, which is not always the case.
When there are indications that a person’s cognitive abilities have declined to the point where they can no longer perform their job effectively (as is being suggested for Senators Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell), a neuropsychological evaluation should be conducted as part of a comprehensive medical assessment. This would assess their cognitive capabilities and overall ability to carry out their responsibilities. This would ensure that decisions are based on evidence rather than random opinions or age discrimination.
Cognitive decline is a legitimate issue, but it does not occur automatically with age. It is unjust to limit individuals solely based on their age. In fact, it is a form of age discrimination.
Tracy Carroll
Leeds, Mass.
Certified Dementia Practitioner
To the Editor:
The problem of aging members of Congress who are no longer effective can largely be resolved through the implementation of 18-year term limits. Instead of the current gerontocracy controlling the agenda, term limits would facilitate a continuous flow of younger citizens in the chambers of Capitol Hill.
Furthermore, let’s extend this idea to the members of the Supreme Court as well. By implementing term limits for all three branches of the federal government, we would promote a more dynamic and diverse political landscape.
Gregg Smith
Stanfordville, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Many people believe that it’s better for actors to retire a performance too early rather than one too late. This adage also applies to politicians, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell, and possibly President Biden.
Now, instead of Senator Feinstein being remembered as a trailblazing woman in politics, she will go down in history as an elderly woman who stubbornly clung to her Senate duties despite being clearly incapacitated, as everyone but herself could see. Senator McConnell’s performance is also now called into question. President Biden seems to be exceeding expectations, but time waits for no one.
I can understand their hesitation to retire. I, too, had reservations about retiring. But for some of them, it is simply time.
Daniel Fink
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Donald Trump vs. Jack Smith: Has Trump Met His Match?
To the Editor:
The article “Old Trump Habit Is Seen at Heart of New Charges” (front page, July 29) discusses a pattern of attempting to hinder prosecutors, and it appears that Donald Trump may have finally encountered his match in Jack Smith.
The battlefield is uneven. The Justice Department follows the policy of speaking solely through court filings, while Mr. Trump faces no such limitations. He can launch a daily assault on various media platforms, which is a significant advantage that he fully capitalizes on. However, in the court of law, the special counsel possesses all the advantages.
Jack Smith has demonstrated a remarkable understanding of how to prosecute his case, resulting in a score of Smith 2, Trump 0. Although Mr. Smith is currently in the lead, history has shown that it is too early to count Mr. Trump out. He is a cunning competitor with a formidable counterpunch. If Mr. Smith leaves an opening, Mr. Trump will undoubtedly seize the opportunity.
Donald Trump is a master marketer and manipulator. Many people, including pundits, often underestimate him. They fail to comprehend the game he is playing and overlook his extraordinary skill in it. They have underestimated him in the past and are likely to do so in the future.
History has also taught us that when Mr. Trump feels threatened, he will go to great lengths to avoid defeat and is not shy about taking others down in the process. The future remains uncertain. We cannot fathom the convoluted tactics Mr. Trump will employ when pushed into a corner of this magnitude. He will not go down without a fierce fight.
David Zolt
Lakewood, Ohio
He Was a Russian Soldier
To the Editor:
I applaud The New York Times for having the courage to publish Tyler Hicks’s photograph of the remains of a Russian soldier on the front page on Monday.
While some may criticize The Times for this decision, it is essential for everyone to witness the death and destruction caused by Vladimir Putin’s aggressive war. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Joe McGloin
Sheridan, Colo.
To the Editor:
I am certain that many readers were shocked and appalled by your choice to feature a large color photograph of the remains of a Russian soldier on the front page.
By now, your readers are well aware of the brutality of this aggressive war. Was it truly necessary to include this gruesome and gratuitous photo on your front page, or any page?
Presumably, this deceased soldier had a family who loved him dearly. The Times’ decision was not only insensitive but also inhumane.
Gerard Rosenthal
New York
Save a Bipartisan AIDS Program
To the Editor:
As a Republican, I am deeply ashamed of my party’s willingness to subject PEPFAR, a bipartisan program that has saved 25 million lives worldwide since its inception in 2003, to partisan culture wars.
The fact that we cannot agree on protecting PEPFAR, which is arguably the most successful foreign aid program in our nation’s history, from partisan conflict is a reflection of how broken our politics have become.
The politicization of issues that enjoy support from both sides of the aisle is disheartening. It leads us down a dangerous path that erodes our values, diminishes our global standing, and neglects the very humanity we strive to protect.
PEPFAR, as a testament to American leadership and compassion, has been a beacon of hope for millions affected by HIV/AIDS worldwide. To transform this lifeline into a political weapon is a travesty.
As Republicans, we must commit to safeguarding PEPFAR and strengthening the life-saving work it has accomplished over the past two decades. If we fail to do so, we will bring shame upon ourselves.
Kiran Bhatia
Brookline, Mass.
Freedom to Read What We Choose
To the Editor:
I was disheartened to read Emily St. James’s essay, “What Book Bans Mean for a Public Library” (Opinion guest essay, July 23). As an avid reader during my childhood, some of my fondest memories were of visiting the public library, a place where characters leaped off the pages and became my childhood companions.
The library was a magical space where one could explore the world from a cozy chair and discover that, despite external differences, we are all fundamentally the same.
In today’s chaotic world, the library is an even more crucial haven. As a society, our freedom to read what we choose is an essential right. No one should be denied the opportunity to proudly carry home a stack of books of their choosing!
Cora Berke
Lambertville, N.J.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
