LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.
Health plan may wreck economy
As a small business owner in a community hard-hit by a sagging economy, I question whether or not this is the right time for health care reform.
Big business is collapsing. Home foreclosures are up. Unemployment hits an all-time high, and the government wants to spend $871 billion. Where will it come from? If this plan is hatched upon the backs of small business, will President Obama shift bailout dollars from the Fortune 500 crowd to the inhabitants of Main Street?
Under the current plan, those of us who choose to opt out will have to pay penalties of $750 per employee each year. This Trojan horse of a different color will only thrust unemployment to new heights, as small-business owners struggle to stay ahead of the curve.
Why are we, as Americans, letting this empty-bellied machine (government) have its fill of whatever it chooses to consume? Is this administration pushing forward only to fill the history books with "unprecedented" firsts? This platform of change seems rickety, if you ask me, and it's like the many platforms before it - they all come crashing down eventually.
Is a nationwide health care system a good idea? Perhaps. Will it save lives? Maybe. But are we willing to see the total collapse of an already stricken economy to see that reality? Guess we will find out come next session!
Focus on the most likely attackers
What is it going to take? Does a briefcase packed with C4 explosive have to rip open the food court of a mall in a major city before the national security community realizes what's going on?
All of this politically correct garbage is going to be our undoing. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, after this most recent terror attack, that they are trying to connect the dots. Really? Here, let me help: All terror attacks against this country in the past 30-plus years have one thing in common. Anyone care to venture a guess? Or are you afraid you might offend someone? I'll just say it for you. They were all carried out by male Muslim radicals.
Why is it so bad to point out the truth? It would be a lot easier to stop the terrorists if we kept a closer eye on the people that fit that profile. Instead, we're searching grandmother and confiscating her knitting needles. Give me a break.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims, this side of Timothy McVeigh. The real reason for all the political correctness in Washington, D.C., is that politicians don't want to upset anybody. That could cost them a few votes. And we all know what a politician fears the most - no, not another 9-11, but the loss of their elective office. It's a shame.
Abstinence well-funded in past
Subject: "Abstinence" proponents seek federal funding. Am I the only one who finds this article in the Dec. 28 Register-Guard funny ?
During the Bush years the feds funded $150 million a year in the U.S. for abstinence training, totaling a not too paltry $1.2 billion over eight years. In Africa the Bush administration "ABC" program to combat AIDS stipulated that one third of the $15 billion program had to be spent on abstinence programs.
Aren't these the same people who object to any universal or single-payer health care for all U.S. citizens? And condoms? They want $50 million a year to teach abstinence (virginity retention) to teenagers.
Now, there's a receptive audience, I'll bet.
'Pre-civilized' life wasn't great
While John Zerzan may be a first-rate anarchist, he'd get an "F" in anthropology. To suggest, as he did (letters, Dec. 29 ), that there was no war among "precivilized" people is truly laughable.
Many, if not most, such people lived in nearly constant conflict with one or more neighboring groups. His claim that pre-agricultural, pre-industrial women were not objectified may be in some way technically correct, depending on one's definition of objectification. That's a long shot from his implication that they were somehow better off.
In just one of innumerable examples, historian Robert Hughes describes the first recorded contact with Australia's native Iora people: "Armed rape as a byproduct of tribal warfare was not unknown among the Aborigines ... (Marriage) did not change a woman's status much. Both before and after, she was merely a root-grubbing, shell-gathering chattel, whose social assets were wiry arms, prehensile toes and a vagina. As a mark of hospitality, wives were lent to visitors whom the Iora tribesmen wanted to honor. Warriors, before setting out on a revenge raid against some other aboriginal group, would swap their women as an expression of brotherhood."
Yes, there is a correlation between the sophistication of a society's agricultural and industrial production and the status of women. But it's a positive one.
Some dogs need to be euthanized
Pit bulls have been in the news recently, along with whether or not Lane County Animal Services was going to euthanize some dogs.
Go to the LCAS Web site, click on Special Needs Animals and read the descriptions. The mission statement of LCAS is "To ensure public and animal health, safety, and quality of life within our community..."
Would you want some of these dogs in your neighborhood? How many people are responsible enough to take on a dog with these challenges? Does adopting these dogs fall within the mission statement?
LCAS should euthanize dogs that have serious issues and are a danger. If you disagree, do you have a better solution? Are you capable of adopting them and keeping them, and your neighborhood, safe?
Many insurance agencies are not insuring folks who have certain dog breeds.
Are you financially able to pay for the vet bills when your dog tears up a neighborhood pet or pay emergency room bills if a child is bitten?
It is not the dogs' fault. It is irresponsible breeding that has changed the genetic makeup of these dogs and turned them into walking time bombs. Are they all this way? No.
But when you have dogs that already have some serious behavior issues, are you willing to risk the safety of your child, pets, neighborhood? How much liability do you take on by doing that?
And when these dogs come into the shelter, they must be responsible and euthanize animals that are a danger to the community.
'Daddies' not always best leaders
I know John Wilson (letters, Dec. 27) thinks it's an insult to call the Democrats "mommies" and the Republicans "daddies," as if mothers are the worst and daddies are the best.
Really? In the households I am most intimate with, the mothers were the ones you could trust and depend on, while the irresponsible fathers ran up the credit cards, drank and caroused until the wee hours and then lied about it when they crawled home to sleep it off.
Kind of like the last eight years when the Republicans ran the government. They ran up the debt, bought off granny with the unfunded prescription drug bill, and showed how macho they were by getting us into senseless war.
A war, by the way, that was put on the credit cards - a war to be fought by and paid for by the kids, regardless of party affiliation.
Big Daddy George W. Bush and the Republican leadership strutted around like they owned the world. They couldn't be constrained by responsible regulations, those are just for sissy girls.
When their buddies on Wall Street played fast and loose with the world economy, who had to bail them out when it all came crashing down? Hardworking, taxpaying mommies, who like abused wives dumped daddy for some small sliver of hope.
Unfortunately our government is much more complicated than a simplistic mom-and-dad metaphor. Politicians are fallible human beings, susceptible to the largess of corporate America - and that is the real problem with our government.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Letters Editorial|
|Publication:||The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR)|
|Date:||Jan 2, 2010|
|Previous Article:||A new decade - or not.|
|Next Article:||LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.|