Vail Daily letter: Appalled at Wednesday edition
Vail, CO, Colorado
I am a long time reader of your paper but am seriously considering why I waste my time. Your Wednesday, Nov. 23, edition was a complete and utter disgrace! In your Commentary section you run a couple of short yet meaningful letters regarding the death of Dr. Charles Tuft, an esteemed member of our community, right next to a much larger article that goes on for two pages and gushes about a dog who died of old age.
Are you kidding me? That is outrageous and completely disrespectful.
As I read the articles, I came away with the impression that losing a 15-year-old dog is somehow more important that losing a highly respected emergency room doctor who loved the outdoors and deeply cared for those who happened to come into his care.
I am sorry for Linda Stamper Boyne’s loss, but it does not even begin to compare to the loss experienced by the entire community with the passing of Dr. Tuft. To put the articles side by side is a joke. A very bad, sick and twisted joke.
If this was the only thing that made my stomach turn, I may have left it alone. However, the quote of the author about loving her dog “beyond what is probably socially acceptable” is a good segue into my next complaint about this particular edition.
Mr. Robbins writes a long column on the “presumption of innocence” as it applies to former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. I was so sickened by the article that I admit that I could not finish reading it in its entirety.
Yes, Jerry Sandusky is entitled to due process before he is convicted and thrown in jail to be gang-raped by his fellow prison inmates. However, to assert that he or Penn State University should somehow be spared criticism until Jerry Sandusky is convicted is beyond me.
Mr. Sandusky himself admitted to Bob Costas in an interview that he showered with young boys. This conduct, which he readily admitted to, is wrong, illegal and beyond anything that could be remotely considered socially acceptable.
Remember the movie “Airplane” and the line from the co-pilot when he asked the young boy if he had ever seen a grown man naked? That was comedy, but it gave the viewer a very uneasy feeling because everyone watching knows it is wrong!
Mr. Sandusky is that type of person by his very admission and I think everyone watching knows he is the “pederast” he is accused of being. Penn State, by not immediately throwing the book at Mr. Sandusky as soon as the higher-ups found out this was occurring, is directly implicated in this conduct as it allowed it to occur for multiple years. I don’t need a jury to tell me that it is wrong, illegal and, therefore, subject to public condemnation. What I do need is a reason to continue reading your sorry excuse for a newspaper.
Clean up your act and show some respect before the only use for your paper is as a cat litter liner.
Editor’s note: Mr. Osborne and Don Rogers had a good discussion via email, and he requested that we include Rogers’ initial reply with his letter. “Dave: Interestingly enough, we received several notes to the author from readers who were very touched by the story of the beloved dog and shared how they cried again over their own pets. Charlie was a pretty well-known and well-liked person here. The length of a message has no relation to its importance or quality, although shorter nearly always means more folks will read it. Likewise, there was no intent of trying to suggest an equalizing or anything else. It simply was a column that runs regularly by Linda Boyne in that spot. As for Rohn Robbins’ capable legal explanation dealing with the coach, you might be letting disgust over a dark side of humanity be clouding your judgment about the piece itself. But that’s up to you, of course. I think you are pretty far off-base with your opinion, but it’s yours and there’s nothing that would prevent me from publication.”