DISQUS

I enjoyed reading all the comments to my letter.

This was my reaction to what seems a nihilist and destructive solution to a problem which I believe truly affects a small minority of Americans.

Why can't all people regardless of their religious beliefs (that includes you atheists too...you guys carry around at least as much dogma as the Pope) appreciate a prayer of any denomination for what it is? In the context of the Presidential inauguration, it's a statement of affirmation for the success of the new President and the Nation at an important time. Is this really so offensive?

Is a prayer really any different than a reading by the poet laureate or a the musical performance of a song composed in honor of the event?

I thought the coming of Obama was supposed to herald the start of the new coming together of America. Do we promote understanding by banning public expression of beliefs deeply held by a majority of Americans?

an excellent feature of the web site to be able to watch breaking news live. thanks.

I found nothing wrong with Mr Charles' letter. His point of view and choice of language probably doesn't sway me towards his point of view, but I doubt that is his intention. He strikes me as the guy who's "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". Seems to me that voice has as much right to be heard here as Betty Hall's.

The editorial board deliberations seem considered and fair. Since all of the editorial board candidate interviews are videotaped and available on line, it might be of interest to watch a video of the deliberations for endorsements as well…maybe more so.

Candidates certainly make a big deal out of newspaper endorsements. The Concord Monitor's anti-endorsement of Mitt Romney is an especially interesting wrinkle. I wonder if this reflects the trend in voter's attitudes where so many people feel like they're not voting for a candidate, but for the lesser of two evils.

In general, I don't find letters containing personal endorsements or rejection of a candidate interesting or compelling. I wouldn't mind the policy of the paper being to never publish personal endorsement letters. Of course, this would call into question why some people's endorsements would be judged worthy for printing while letters are banned. For example, why should the editors of the newspaper be able to come out with a candidate endorsement if reader letters are banned? How about when major public figures endorse a candidate and its reported as news?

I'm glad to see more attention paid to local issues. Discussion of national issues with a local spin would also be welcome.

Whether or not you agree that the moniker is fitting, I don't think it belongs in a front page headline, or in a news story period. It is too easily viewed as a pejorative, and could therefore be reasonably interpreted as bias. The fact that "Rove has been referred to as such numerous times over the years" is a pretty poor excuse. In general, I think the newspaper should be focused on reporting news, not making news.

I'm not personally offended by the use of profanity in this context, but I can see how its appearance in the paper could be considered in bad taste. I have some sympathy for the parent who is trying to teach his children verbal self-discipline while fighting the ever rising tide of public profanity. Perhaps the newspaper should take the high ground, try to preserve the value of tasteful language in public, and leave profanity to the Sopranos.