Printed Letters: October 19, 2016
A third-party vote this election is ignorant
Many Bernie supporters assert voting a third party is not “selfish” this November. Instead, these individuals claim third-party votes will help in the future. A third party candidate receiving 5 percent or more of the votes indeed qualifies for future federal funding.
However, these folk need to learn from the past and fear a possible 2016 outcome. The second Bush won in 2000 by only five electoral votes. Colorado had eight electoral votes. Bush won Colorado by about 45,000 votes. At the same time Ralph Nader got approximately 90,000 votes in Colorado. I have read that two of three voters would have probably voted for Gore in 2000 without Nader in the mix. Nader most likely cost Gore eight Colorado electoral votes and victory. More to the point, tens of thousands of Colorado voters wasted their vote, perhaps felt morally victorious, and changed history.
A third-party presidential vote in 2016 is not only “selfish,” such an action is naïve and ignorant. Please think of the country and vote Hillary. The country is becoming more progressive, a position certainly supported by Bernie. Listen to Bernie. Do not waste your vote.
Vote yes on Prop 106 , the End-of-Life Options Act
This November we will have the opportunity to vote on the Colorado End-of-Life Options Act, Prop 106. This is a statutory proposition, not a constitutional amendment, initiated by Coloradans for Coloradans. It has the support of many Republicans and Democrats both. This is not a political issue.
Modeled after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act of 1997, we know from statistics that the thorough protections built into the act prevent misuse and abuse. This act will take government out of medical decisions best left to patients, their doctors, their families, and their faith. There is no role for government, or anyone else, in the very personal and difficult decisions made at the end of a person’s life. It is completely up to the individual to make the decision and I believe it is their choice and right to do so.
The individual must be 18 or older, mentally capable, with a diagnosis of a terminal illness likely to cause death in six months, as confirmed by two physicians. The person is counseled on all feasible treatment alternatives. The person must make two verbal requests with a 15-day waiting period in between, and a third request made in front of two witnesses (one of whom cannot be related). The person must be able to self-administer the medication without assistance. These are just some of the safeguards.
I have had personal experience of family and friends ending their lives with pain and suffering and wish they had had the choice to make this decision, based on their own values and beliefs. I know I want this option of choice for myself. I am voting in favor of Prop 106.
It’s a trap to always look for agreement when reading news
Kudos to The Daily Sentinel for printing the opinion of Kyle Sullivan in the Oct. 14 edition. I am hoping others in the public see the irony in our local paper quickly publishing a rather scathing letter that takes it to task for lack of fairness. It is obvious from Mr. Sullivan’s recitation of that tired litany of Democratic/Clinton failures that he gets a volume of news somewhere. Could his source be that paragon of fairness and equitable reporting: Fox?
Though I don’t always like the tone of Charles Krauthammer’s writing, or the weight of George Will’s, I read their pieces with true relish because they help me flesh out and cement my own opinions. Substantive writing of any tenor reminds me what a trap it is to always be looking for agreement when I read.
So, where Mr. Sullivan thinks he has made a thoughtful, principled decision in canceling his Daily Sentinel subscription (really?), I see a somewhat sad, knee-jerk move. And, though Mr. Sullivan will no longer be receiving the local paper, I suspect he will read my response. I liken him to the smoker attempting to quit; he no longer buys his own, but the addiction remains… and he will bum from others.
Examples abound for when U.S. became ‘no longer great’
In his letter published Oct. 6, Roger Fulks states that the Trump/Pence campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” made him wonder, “When did America become not great?”
This question becomes much easier if we try and figure out exactly when we were a great country. Was it back when our presidents respected the Constitution and enforced the laws of the United States instead of finding every possible way to circumvent them? Or was it when we had a Congress willing to perform the duties of minding the purse strings and limiting the president to his constitutional powers? Perhaps it was when we didn’t have such a destructive foreign policy that treats our allies as enemies and rewards our adversaries. Or maybe it was back when presidents don’t lie to us about keeping our doctors and our health insurance premiums going down? Or was it before we committed to sacrificing our economy on the altar of global warming. Excuse me; I guess it should be “climate change.” Or was it when the IRS wasn’t used to shut down political opposition in order to win a second presidential term? Or perhaps it was when the Democratic Party didn’t put forth a presidential candidate who belongs in jail?
It might have been back when we had presidents and leaders who tried to unite our country instead of dividing it by means of race, economic class, ethnicity, and gender. Or it might have been when we could count on the FBI and Justice Department to enforce the laws of the United States. Or it may have been when we had a competent commander in chief who didn’t forecast our military withdrawal schedules ahead of time, thereby giving the bad guys plenty of preparation to come in and fill the vacuum.
Maybe we should just say, “all of the above.”
Excuses are being made for outrageous political opinions
Well hallelujah, a George Will column that I didn’t have to slog through what he was trying to say, while showing off his vocabulary, which we all know is extensive, so he didn’t have to prove it. So now we actually know where he stands in this difficult election, and don’t have to guess at it, and then guess wrong.
This seems to be a time when excuses are being made for some outrageous political opinions that are coming from folks who ought to know better. I’m reminded of a letter I wrote to this newspaper in March of 2003, that was published in April, in which I said it was obvious that we were going to be dragged into a war in Iraq, by people who should have known better. And I wondered why a nobody like me, who lived in Nowheresville, could figure that out, when people who had more formal education than I’d ever had, were happily dragging us into a nightmare.
Remember all the flags and bumper stickers there were all over town, and how delighted the owners of some of the vehicles were about going to war — and where are they now? Some of them are trying to blame it all on Hillary, while conveniently forgetting who got them there. It wasn’t a woman, or our current president who was born in this country and who didn’t have a rich daddy who could buy him anything he ever wanted, including a presidency.
Recent column didn’t exhibit Spehar’s usually sound logic
I’ve long respected Jim Spehar’s opinions. Whether or not I agree with the views, Jim usually exhibits sound logic in his regular columns. He often backs up contentions with data and examples. However, in a recent story about the “lesser of two evils” in the presidential election, he labeled “the hard core religious right” as the “most un-Christian of Christians.” I imagine Jim has data or a list of examples to endorse this view. Perhaps he’ll share some in a future column.