Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Letters · Letters 3/31/05
. . . .

Letters 3/31/05

Various - March 31st, 2005
A matter of life
Terri Schiavo‘s case illustrates the fact that the pro life issue has many more dimensions than the protection of the unborn. In this instance we have conflicting views concerning the medical state of this woman.
Several physicians who have examined her as well as a court-appointed guardian have determined her to be in a persistent vegetative state, meaning that she has no cognitive mental function left. Yet her parents claim that she responds to them with strong vocalizations and real emotion which indicates that Terri does have some mental abilities left. Given that there is some doubt as to her true mental state, should we not, as President Bush stated, err on the side of life in this matter?
This is one case where I believe the pro life movement is right on target. I am generally pro choice and known as such and I am generally known as a Democrat and a liberal. However anyone who can look at this case objectively and who has any sense of morality and ethics would agree that Terri Schiavo deserves another hearing and another opportunity to live. There is no proof that she wouldn‘t want such measures to be taken on her behalf. Her husband claims to have had a conversation regarding this issue with Terri almost 20 years ago and yet there is no proof of such a claim other than his own statements. In addition, Terri’s former husband has a financial interest in her demise and is living with a common law wife. His life would be made much simpler if Terri were to completely pass away from the scene.
I am appalled at the statements of those who are so caught up in the politics of this case that they can‘t see the larger moral issue involved. Those with such a hatred for President Bush and the pro life movement generally cannot even make the grudging admission that there are legitimate instances where the right to life does exist. To those who are pro choice, and I still count myself among them, I pose this question. Where is the choice for Terri Schiavo in this matter? Are we to completely starve this woman to death absent some document like a living will? Are we to take the word of her husband who has an obvious motive in discontinuing care?
I think it a misnomer to call those who react in such a knee jerk fashion against Terri Shiavo in this case “liberal.” There is nothing liberal about starving someone to death. There is nothing liberal about a callous disregard for human life. In this particular instance the true “liberals” are those in the pro life movement who are doing everything they can to keep this woman alive.

Brian R. Morgan • Gaylord

Smoking gun
Michael Schiavo admitted on Larry King Live that he didn’t know what Terri wanted. His lie about Terri’s wishes is the basis of the court’s approval of euthanizing Terri.
CNN Larry King Live, March 18, 2005:
Larry King: Do you understand how they feel?
Michael Schiavo: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it’s about Terri. And I’ve also said that in court.
“We didn’t know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...”

Julie Smithson • via email

Hypocrites all around
Congress is pulling out all the stops to save Terri Schiavo, but when it came to saving an Iraqi, they turned a blind eye, removed the inspectors and rushed into war. Robert Blake was acquitted, because nobody liked his wife Bonnie. Everybody loved Laci, so Scott got the death penalty, an honor killing, bureaucratic style. Terri is like a cat caught in a tree. If she were roadkill nobody would care, but her helplessness reveals our insecurity about life and death.
The church is still making scientific proclamations: Life begins at conception. Evolution proves that life comes from life, it does not “begin,” it “continues,” unless somebody interrupts it. Christ says to trust God, not reason, but nobody listens. Thou shall kill if one wants to. Corpses and munitions are piled high. We send our sons (and daughters) to war, and think suicide bombers are insane for plotting war during a time of peace.
All sides are delusional in their paranoia. Closed minds, closed hearts, and closed borders, all snuggled under a Homeland Security Blanket. Christ described the people and our leaders best: Straining on a gnat and swallowing a camel whole. Only the merciless will have need of mercy. May God have mercy on us all, as we have none for each other. If Christ were to return this week, then he would be crucified again by self-righteous pious fascists; not-so-innocent children that fear both the light and the dark.
When will we trust the spirit?

Steve Consilvio • via email

Fuddled facts
Senator Stabenow claims that Social Security is a great American success story, and it represents the best of American values (Express 3/24). Can you explain to me how a bankrupt system is a success? Can you show me the so-called Social Security “trust fund”? You can’t, Senator, because Democrats and Republicans SPENT the Social Security trust fund DECADES ago.
That is why our current Social Security taxes go to fund current Social Security recipients. Social Security was never intended to be a primary source of retirement, only a supplement. That is not a success story, that is a Ponzi scheme.
You purposely misrepresent current ideas to fix Social Security as “privatization.” Under the current proposal, there will always be a government run Social Security administration and you know it. Allowing your constituents to manage a portion of their own retirement money is not privatization, its freedom. As a matter of fact, there is already a similar plan available to federal employees called the “Thrift Savings Plan.”
Your so-called facts and figures completely ignore what will happen if we do nothing. You ignore the fact that most people build far more retirement security through 401K plans than Social Security ever will. You state that fixing social security will add $5 trillion to our national debt, yet you conveniently leave out that we already BORROW to pay current social security recipients. If you are so worried about deficits, Senator, maybe you could propose cutting a program or two. I won’t hold my breath.
In summary Senator Stabenow, your letter is nothing more than the same thing we have been hearing from Democrats for years. You never have and never will believe that your constituents can manage their own lives better than you and your friends in Washington. You have no new ideas other than raising taxes and no other response to fixing problems other than fear.
I can’t wait for November, 2006.

Steven Yenshaw • Williamsburg

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5