Letters to the Editor
As responses to my recent letter made clear, there is always another perspective. Civil debate requires us to listen and acknowledge the opposing side. This I am willing to do. Stair (Sept. 16) and Borum (Sept. 9) have provided the enlarged perspective.
Mine was intended, primarily, to be a political statement warning of the danger of socialism. This political and economic theory advocates the state gathering of income from its citizens, which are then distributed according to the designs of the government in power. Its end and goal is a state-run economy. Examples are the former Soviet Union and present day North Korea.
The House of Representatives' bill in question is socialist in its essence and nature.
The aspersions cast were painfully unflattering to hear. I wish to acknowledge the humanitarian issue involved in the expanded discussion. I did not intend that it be the major focus of my letter.
I believe it true that in America we spend a lesser percentage of our income on necessary food than any other nation. Thus, I was taken aback to hear that there are citizens who work more than one job, and despite such effort are unable to provide food for their families. I am moved by the disclosure that some deprive themselves in order to feed their children. It reminds me of "Pa" Ingalls and his courage and character so effectively described by his daughter Laura Ingalls Wilder in her book "The Long Winter."
I did not mean to say that such want as Borum described should be ignored. There are a number of provisioners, both public and private willing and able to help supply basic needs. My letter intends to argue against adding yet another program which is not only unnecessary, but also socialist in its nature.
My critics imply the right source of instruction for right action and attitude. I agree with it. Jesus, Son of the Creator God, who came to earth as man, exemplified care and compassion as no other. The truth of the Bible instructs in the true balance of personal responsibility and charitable compassion.
Thanks to my critics for their balancing and thought-provoking responses.
Fox News, Sept. 12, 12:32 p.m.Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal, a reliable Trump supporter.
He raised subject of Biden's accusation that Trump is putting pressure on the Federal Drug Agency.
"It is merely tweets, deep state at FDA or something... If there were real political pressure from an official at the White House, it would be in the news within on hour."This is a W.S.J.'s Trump apologist saying tweet messages from the President of the United States are ignored. "Officials know by now they have to do their job," Henninger concluded.
Here in a nut shell we have Fox News and the W.S.J. downplaying the president's totally false tweets. Saying government officials know he is lying and that the falsehoods are only directed at the general public.
If such an episode happened with any of the previous 44 presidents, they would have had to resign in shame, as did Nixon. Donald Trump has trashed all of the ethical standards of the past 250 years.What does this say about Trump supporters?Why do they so want to believe?Donovan Stair,
You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts. Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.