Saturday, February 25, 2012

Winston-Salem Journal LTE SA 02/25/12


Respecting Cal
I rarely agree with columnist Cal Thomas (which means that I actually read his column occasionally and that on some few occasions I have agreed with him). However, I was stunned by his column "Rachel Maddow and my lesson in civility" (Feb. 17). I still do not agree with most of his views, but I have gained respect for him after reading this column.
If more people — conservatives and liberals — treated those with opposing views with both respect and with the belief that they have innate value as a person, perhaps our country could move forward once again.

LAURA A.W. PHILLIPS
Winston-Salem
Sort it out
Conservatives say the government is too big and we need more rugged independence and free enterprise beyond the reach of the oppressive hand of Washington; progressives say that we need more of a hand up for the least of us, and that only government can provide that safety net.
These seem to be directly opposite views. They seem to leave little room for compromise, but the truth is more interesting. Maybe both are right, and maybe both can have what they prefer.
In 2007, the last "normal" year, the 10 most conservative states received 21 percent of their income through transfers from the federal government, while the 10 most progressive states received only 17 percent of their income from Washington. The American political system is delivering the opposite of what Americans want, when sorted by where they live.
Suppose we give the conservative states what they want — less government handouts — and the progressive states what they want — more safety net — by changing the pattern of transfers. Take about a quarter of the transfers going to conservative states and give them to the progressive states. The conservative states would be as free as the progressive states once were, and the progressive states as smothered as the conservatives once were. Here is a win-win for both ends of the political spectrum, and without tax increases.

STEVE SCROGGIN
Winston-Salem
The Komen question
Why would Susan G. Komen for the Cure (a cancer charity), whose stated mission is education and research about the causes and treatment of breast cancer, give any of our donations to Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the country) ("Komen incident leaves damage," Feb. 5)? Its diversion of our donations away from finding the cure for breast cancer to Planned Parenthood is a major breach of trust.
I think we need to defund Susan G. Komen for the Cure along with Planned Parenthood.

MARY JO ARGENTA
Winston-Salem
The 'marriage amendment'
"But that's not what I meant. I didn't mean that unmarried heterosexual couples would no longer be able to pursue domestic-violence complaints against their abusive partners. And I certainly didn't mean that public employers would no longer be able to provide health care to their committed straight or gay employees. Really, that's not what I meant." So state Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam might say about Amendment One.
Well, then, what did he mean? Proponents of Amendment One are attempting to define marriage in our constitution as between one man and one woman, even though marriage by any other definition is already illegal. No one wishes ill to victims of domestic violence, regardless of their sexual orientation. We also agree that health-care benefits, if made available by the employer, should never be eliminated because of someone else's definition. That's the employer's decision, not ours.
Since Amendment One will regulate what is already illegal, why pass it? Numerous legal minds are in agreement that the proposed language is ambiguous at best ("Marriage law stirs legal issues," Feb. 19). So why the rush? Regardless of which side people are on, they should consider that the proposed language still needs work.
We always say that we're smart enough to pause when we know something has been shown to be questionable; this is questionable. We owe it to ourselves to know what we're really voting for on May 8. Until we do, please vote no. The potential consequences for all couples is just too great.

GLYNIS JORDAN
Winston-Salem
Finish the Thought
Briefly complete the sentence below and send it to us at letters@wsjournal.com. We'll print some of the results in a few days. Only signed entries, please, no anonymous ones.
"Big government becomes a problem when it…"

7 comments:

  1. LTE #3... Probably an inadvertent omission on your part, I'll give you the Cal Thomas benefit of the doubt, but if you go to the Susan G. Komen website you will find:

    "As the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists, we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures."

    "For over 25 years, friends who have shared the vision of Susan G. Komen for the Cure have become partners in advancing our mission. Together we have made tremendous progress toward eradicating breast cancer as a life-threatening disease through research, education, screening and treatment."

    yes, research and education but also screening, treatment, and ensure quality care for all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Big government becomes a problem when it"...forgets it constitutional purpose and limits."The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" (ct).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure about that second statement, WW.

      If I were emperor, there would be only one law: Thou shalt do ONLY whatever the emperor tells you to do

      It would be interesting to see if there would ever be a need for a second law.

      Delete
    2. OT....The second quote is a Tacitus quote (ct). He and I use initials to communicate-ww/ct. The first is self evident.

      Delete
  3. LTE # 2 - I like this...put the money where the mouth is.

    But just try to actually do it. You will hear the rugged individualists screaming like stuck pigs if you go messing with their feeding trough.

    One of my favorite ironies is that the goddess of the selfish and mean-spirited, Ayn Rand, herself eventually took government handouts...when it comes to money, just about everybody is a H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

    LTE #3 - Yes, cut off your nose to spite your face. Do these fools ever stop to think how many pregnancies, many of which would turn into abortions, are prevented each year by Planned Parenthood?

    Of course not, because they never actually think about anything, just parrot whatever their preachers or Rush Dumbaugh says.

    Ignorance is truly bliss.

    LTE #4 - What Ms. Jordan needs to understand is that anyone who would vote for this useless amendment does not care about any of the issues that she mentions.

    All they care about is that the amendment is anti-gay, right up their bigoted alley.

    ReplyDelete