A slur against all
On Monday, in a ceremony to award Navajo code talkers from World War II, our president, during the ceremony, decided to use a slur directed toward the senator from Massachusetts; it was the name of a famous Native American woman who helped the settlers in Jamestown. He did this in front of the Native American code talkers he was feting.
He also said, and it hasn’t been touched on, that “they” call her “Pocahontas.” So who is the “they”? Was that you? Wasn’t me, I don’t talk that way. Is it someone in the Senate or House? I seriously doubt it. My point is our president slurred everyone in the U.S. by his remark, and he did it on TV that will spread around the world.
The tsunami wave of sexual misconduct allegations continues to roll across our nation, picking up more detritus along its way. What I would like to know is why is there so much support for these terminations of high profile perpetrators, yet the person elected to “lead” our country, who was recorded admitting the same offenses, is allowed to continue to gut our economy, sell our country’s security to the enemy, and take us to the brink of nuclear war with seeming impunity! Where is the balance of justice and outrage?
This country is becoming a black spot on the face of humanity and the cancer will continue to grow the longer he is allowed to undermine everything that is decent and just.
And where is our representative, Mr. Walden? Why he is sitting next to the pervert, supporting his so-called tax break for the middle class?
I for one am outraged over what is happening! Not my president, not my representative! We must stand and be heard, be silent no more!
‘Outlaw’ not the answer
Having a Ph.D. once again does not equate with some common sense, as Mr. Serkowneck’s letter to the editor (Nov. 22) illustrates.
I think the NRA is correct. We do need more armed good guys. The attacker in Texas did not commit suicide — should we not hear more about the armed citizen who chased him down and wounded him before he may have committed more shooting? I suspect there were armed citizens in Las Vegas, but it is clear that you either have not been fire armed trained or are just blind, but training requires that when you return fire, you know where the target is, and you have a clear shot so that no one else is accidently injured. To randomly shoot at a building would not be responsible. Why would you imply that? We certainly know how well just outlawing something works. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and one of the highest murder rates in the country. Work there? Had there been an armed teacher in Sandy Hook (gun-free zone) I suspect the outcome may have been quite different. I suspect I could go to most any city in the country and buy any one of the highly restricted and illegal drugs we have outlawed and buy them quite easily. Work there? Outlaw it and it will go away! Really?
White Salmon, Wash.
Tunnel, not bridge
As our community grows, the Columbia River crossing will be replaced. We should consider a tunnel option.
A tunnel does not require an exhaustive environmental impact study, does not affect fish passage, does not affect barge traffic, causes less visual pollution, is safer during earthquakes, and can be constructed using a design-build contract, allowing for immediate progress to begin without years of wasted time. As the port plans this important option, a tunnel option may be a better solution for a myriad of reasons.
Allen Goddin, PE
Remember the Golden Rule
I am often surprised at how opinions become facts merely because one agrees with a particular side of an argument. Mr. Alan Winans’ Nov. 29 letter, “Letter replies,” seems to fit this paradigm quite nicely.
The letter suggests Mr. Serkownek does not understand U.S. law (as a good Republican does, according to Mr. Winans). He was asked to “submit his version of the law that would stop all killings, including abortions …”
As an ill-informed Democrat, I know the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 on Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. So, even if my opinion disagreed with that of the court, their decision is an irrefutable fact as the law of the land.
Later the letter suggests the new tax plan effectively punishes anyone seeking student loans because of those who have defaulted on previous loan obligations. POTUS has filed bankruptcy on four separate occasions to avoid paying for debts he has incurred. I bet those debts were far greater than a college loan.
Readers are expected to believe that fiscal and ethical responsibility is the driving force behind the proposed changes in the tax law. Where were these do-gooders and arm-twister Grover Norquist (Google anti-tax pledge) when Republic POTUS Bush spent two billion and counting on the Iraq War and more on his Medicare part D program? Neither of these policies had money to support them.
Having an opposing opinion is one thing, but virtually accusing Ms. McPherson of defaulting on personal loans borders on libel, in my humble opinion.
Since scripture was quoted in the original letter, I suggest we refer back to the Good Book for a reminder about the Golden Rule.
Kill the tax bill
People’s eyes tend to glaze over when talk turns to taxes, the budget deficit and federal debt. That’s unfortunate because they need to know that the tax cuts being rushed through Congress will not only affect taxes and the deficit, but also severely impact the future of Medicare and Social Security.
The tax cuts benefiting corporations and the wealthy are all being made permanent, while the tax cuts for the middle class will be phased out.
The middle class cuts are frontend loaded to create the illusion that the package benefits the middle class.
Extending those middle class tax cuts would add another $700 billion in debt at a time when Medicare is running out of money and there is no plan for dealing with the wave of upcoming retirements. This is the “starve the beast” strategy of cutting taxes and increasing the debt in order to force cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Entitlement reforms are needed, but driving up the deficit before shoring up the social safety net is recklessly irresponsible.
The last tax reform was a bipartisan effort that took two years and passed the Senate with 97 votes. The current partisan bill is aimed at placating wealthy donors and being rushed through without meaningful hearings in order to keep voters from seeing how little they will benefit. It is a prelude to cutting Medicare and Social Security.
Congress should kill this deeply flawed tax bill and start over.