Letters to the Editor - Jan. 26, 2011
Published: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.
Irony jumped out of the Jan. 15 letter by David Mathia. He wrote about the shooting in Arizona and harsh political rhetoric, and then lets loose with his own unfounded charges that talk show hosts and bloggers promote violence without pointing out any actual examples.
He even notes the interview with Rep. Cliff Stearns and the congressman's mention of Shays' rebellion in the late 18th century. Shays' rebellion was an armed uprising that occurred from 1786 to 1787 before there were tweets, talk radio, or cable news. He simply answered a question if there had been violence in the nation's past. Stearns went on to express "shock" over the attack and that he has joined in condemning violence.
It is sad that so many resort to overheated political name calling to condemn overheated political name calling.
Don't waste money on museum of ideas
Neoconservative Congressman Cliff Stearns recently introduced H.R.294, "The Museum of Ideas Act of 2011" to develop a museum in the District of Columbia that presents the history and evolution of human ideas.
While our nation suffers under a failing economy, Stearns has been inventing new ways to waste our money and increase our national debt.
Where in the Constitution is this authorized?
Lloyd W. Bailey, Jr.,
Try honest debate
Why in the wake of the Arizona shooting is there such an outcry of denial from right wing extremists to preserve the poisonous status quo of vitriolic rhetoric?
Can it be that honest debate of issues will not fit on a bumper sticker? Is it at all possible to objectively review some of the hateful missives and say that it's gone too far? What is objective or even issue oriented about terms like: death panels, non-citizen, communist, socialist, reload, Obamacare, child killer, job killing, you lie, blood libel and more?
Doesn't it make sense to approach our national problems in a sane, logical manner instead of a lock and load mentality?
When rights conflict
We all have the right to privacy, to be left alone. We also have the right to be safe in public and in our own homes. When these rights conflict and our safety is dangerously threatened, safety takes precedence.
Our present laws seem to be inadequate for authorities to evaluate, communicate and handle serious threats to public safety. In particular, serious overt threats and actions by deranged persons.
Representatives of agencies that deal with threats should meet to discuss keeping the public safe through better communication and legal action. More effective processes could be developed.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.