Email letters, December 18, 2013
Improving national health while paring cost is valid goal
In an apparent fit of automatic selfishness in his letter published Dec. 18, Tim Carruthers argues against the general insurance principle that a larger population pool can make lower premiums possible, to make his case against contributing to another’s welfare.
If someone his age had a pregnant wife, his maternity coverage would surely reduce her premium, as well as contribute to the couple’s marital comfort and security. Similarly, a wife might balk at buying prostate cancer coverage for herself, even though she would probably benefit from the security of knowing her husband can get expert care.
One of the main obstacles faced by the ACA is the widespread national
refusal to recognize that improving national health while reducing cost is a goal that we should all be happy to unselfishly support.
Five American Legion posts in valley are here to help vets
I would like to clarify some things about the American Legion in the Grand Valley. Some folks don’t know of the legion in the valley, or they think there is only one post here. The truth is there are five active posts. These are Grand Junction Post 37, Palisade 50, Clifton Post 200, Fruita Post 2006 and Grand Junction Post 2009. At this time Post 2700 in Whitewater is inactive.
There are 14 districts within the American Legion Department of Colorado, and within District 13 there are 14 posts. District 13 is along I-70 from Aspen to the Utah border. These posts vary in size from 10 to almost 100 members. Some have a Ladies Auxiliary, and some have a Sons of Legion squadron. But no matter the size, all posts help all veterans in their own way.
Thank you to all and welcome home.
District 13, Commander
Coloradans better stewards of land than East Coast feds
For those who believe access to our public lands would be worse under state control than federal control, I would point to the amazing job our federal government is doing with Obamacare.
Look, the simple fact is that if the people of Colorado decided how their public lands would be used it would be their decision, not some clown from the East Coast who only knows what he sees on National Geographic about the West.
Oh, there’s a little thing about the asset of our lands, too. If Coloradans want to develop some of their land into private, taxed land, they can. If Coloradans want to protect their sage-grouse, they can. If Coloradans want to protect and expand their hunting and fishing industries, they can. They are not at the whim of special interests and politicians from the East who only want to control us through our lands.
The bottom line is the people of the state of Colorado would decide how to use and develop their lands, not the federal government. If the people of the eastern states want to have say over our lands, then I say they need to put the same percentage of land on the block as we have.
I want to have the same say over their 30-40-50 percent or more of their state lands that we are forced to give them. Give me a break! Any time the federal government tells you it can manage something better than the local people, it has a bridge for you to buy, too.
Sens. Udall, Bennet voted to weaken national sovereignty
The topic of national sovereignty doesn’t register with most folks, and it should. In the case of our United States the term refers to the ability of our people to control our own government. This ability is under constant attack, and unfortunately most Americans are not aware of these threats.
A recent chance meeting with three college sophomores and two high school seniors revealed that not one had ever heard of the term, “national sovereignty,” and as a result they had no understanding whatsoever of its meaning. When one gains this understanding fully and then learns there are those in our government who never miss an opportunity to give (cede) away some of our freedoms and vital laws, and therefore give control of these laws to others, notably the United Nations, it is highly troubling.
Three times in recent months treaties have been proposed to the U.S. Senate for ratification. In each case the vote was very close. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed, and in each case the proposals were defeated. As with the “Affordable Care Act,” each proposal had a very enticing name. Without reading the proposal carefully, one would conclude, “That sounds OK with me.”
One would also naturally ask, “Who in our government would vote to do such a thing, that is, weaken our national sovereignty?” This writer, who learned in a high school U.S. history class this and other basic tenets of our liberties and republic, is astounded to watch our Senate even try to give them away. In all three cases, both Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet voted to do exactly that.
If one would ask either man why (and they should be asked), in all likelihood the answer would be “Coloradans told me to do so.” And, of course, that would be a bold-faced lie. It’s time they were asked, and it’s time for both to go. Let’s start with Udall next November.
FRANK ROGER LITTLE
Liberals’ worldview ignores real issues
Once again we are treated to the irrational rant of John Borgen, this time concerning the most recent school shooting. Yet another straw man is erected and soundly thrashed.
The real issues are not addressed because they escape the liberal/progressive worldview. These people have no rational basis for morality, meaning/purpose or the intrinsic worth of man; yet they act as if these things exist and feign outrage without reason.
One cannot really talk of violence without addressing evil and where it resides. We also cannot speak of right or wrong without a justifiable source of a moral law. Arnold Toynbee, in his history, mentions 21 civilizations. He says ours is the first that does not enjoin a moral law or educate the youth in morality.
Saying that something is wrong also implies a purpose has been thwarted. Borgen must sincerely believe his words have meaning and by extension, himself. From which direction do we arrive at meaning and purpose?
Then, finally, even progressives must regard the victims of these shootings as having worth or we would not even be talking of these things. From the progressive, secular worldview, discussing the answers to these issues would be a meaningless exercise; therefore, they are ignored. To come to the rational conclusions their position would self-destruct.
Does chastising fellow Americans do any good?
It was sad to see John Borgen’s letter in which he uses the tragic school shooting at Arapahoe High School as an opportunity to not only condemn lawful gun-owners of all ages and from all walks of life, but also to insult Americans in general.
We’re often told we are thoughtless, selfish and greedy, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We should be more like those nations/societies that aren’t based on greed and self-interest. Unfortunately, no such nation or society ever has nor ever will exist until every human becomes mature in the teachings of Christ.
But, mostly, Americans are generous. Ironically, those who want to control the money they’ve earned are considered “greedy” by those who are so greedy that they feel they should control the money that others have earned. Yet after being forced to support things they disagree with, Americans continue to give voluntarily, helping their neighbors next door, next state and next country.
What good is it to seize the moral high ground by chastising fellow Americans we feel are inferior? Shall we wring our hands and wonder when Americans will cease being human? Our hope for a utopian Obama nation is a hallucination.
Children are being murdered. We can wait for the day when bad people become ashamed of themselves and stop doing bad things, or we can protect our children now the way Obama protects his children.
To his credit, Borgen acknowledged that guns are used for self-defense sometimes. But more accurately, guns are used to kill innocent people sometimes. Using facts rather than emotion, guns are used much more often to protect innocent life. That’s why we recently recalled two representatives who foolishly supported legislation that effectively made crime safer for criminals. Infringing on the good guys always enables the bad guys.
In our great country people have spoken twice for Obama
So, Tim Fenwick would like us to go back to women not being allowed to vote, slavery was legal and child labor was acceptable?
I have not lost rights, only gained them. I can vote and choose whether to have children. And said children don’t have to go to work at age 6. The only “right” I seem to have lost is owning slaves.
Children are dying by gun violence, and suicide by gun seems to be the choice. It seems something has to change.
No one addresses our high unemployment and low wages for the job one does find. How about raising minimum wage?
I will never support the tea party’s all-white, regressive policies. It’s all about tolerance for your fellow man. It seems it is your way or the highway, with no compromise. Like it or not, there are people who don’t agree with you and never will.
Ours is a great country that accepts the will of the people. The people have spoken. Obama was elected not just once but twice.
Where were all of you when President George Bush was spending money like a drunken thief? Got us into two wars
that were not necessary? No weapons of mass destruction? Mission accomplished. Thousands died and are still dying because now we can’t get out.
Guns exacerbate our cultural problem
Larry Herwick seems not to be paying attention. I said there was a cultural psychosis about people’s attitudes about gun usage. I said nothing about a culture without guns. I have nothing against guns.
I do think culturally we have big problems and guns are involved with our personal interactions. I don’t know what Herwick’s political affiliations are or how he feels about guns, although he has taken the usual attitude promoted by the NRA that claim people want to take away all guns in the desire for a gun-free society.
We have a cultural problem, and guns exacerbate it because it is such a convenient and easy way to “solve’” problems easily.