Mount St. ScholasticaMost conversation today is frivolous chatter. The advent of cellphones hasn't helped the situation any. We do need silence in order to get hold of ourselves, and take constructive bearings on our world.Moreover, the high geographic mobility many experience these days has taken a terrible toll on communities. We need to stay in one place for a while and get to know each other. Without stable values, we have no constructive self-image. What one values is what one believes conscientiously. And what one believes conscientiously is pretty much the composite of who one is.It seems that the Benedictine sisters know who they are, what they believe and what they are doing. That's more than what we can say for a lot of people these days.Letters to the editor
USA TODAY receives about 300 letters each day. Most arrive via e-mail, but we also receive submissions by postal mail and fax. We publish about 35 letters each week.
We often select comments that respond directly to USA TODAY articles or opinion pieces. Letters that are concise and make one or two good points have the best chance of being selected, as do letters that reflect the vibrant debate around the nation on a particular subject.
We aim to make the letters platform a place where readers, not just writers representing institutions or interest groups, have their say.
John L. Indo; HoustonEvenly apply disclosure ruleCommentary writer Drew Cohen's piece on the need for the government to implement rules demanding that companies disclose their campaign contributions was conspicuously lacking an equally anguished cry for the government to do the same in regard to unions ("Column: Shareholders should know about political donations").Cohen is probably too busy pursuing his joint degree in law and business at George Washington University to be aware that many union members pay political contributions out of every paycheck, contributions that go almost exclusively to the Democratic Party to help elect candidates who pledge to advance unions' agendas.If it is any comfort to Cohen, these union contributions level the playing field against evil corporations, one of which perhaps will hire him one day. Robert J. Menerey; Horseshoe Bay, Texas A truly bipartisan deal?In the recent editorial debate on budget politics, Rep. Paul Ryan in his opposing view states: "Republicans' Path to Prosperity budget that passed the House last week represents the only plan that … advances bipartisan, patient-centered health care solutions" ("Paul Ryan: Compromise budget proposal was flawed").How does it advance bipartisanship when he calls it a Republican plan? How is it bipartisan when it was passed on a party-line vote? Have I missed something?Were the views of Democrats in the House taken into consideration? If so, which ones? Only then can Ryan claim that his plan advances a bipartisan solution.Tony Awad; Alpharetta, Ga.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.