Letters to the editor for Friday, July 12, 2013
Use of ‘liberal’ as an epithet is confounding
What’s in a word? The word is “liberal,” and seemingly it has become a dirty word when Conservative writers, such as those who appear in this newspaper, use it to label those with whom they do not agree. A liberal is defined in the dictionary as favorable to progress, free from prejudice, tolerant and open-minded. Certainly not the worst qualities one could possess.
I am neither a registered Democrat or Republican. I consider my views to be liberal with respect to political issues. I believe the poor and under-privileged (many of whom are children) deserve the aid they derive from food stamps, or other programs for which they qualify. I do not think the term “takers” should be used to describe these Americans.
I am strongly against abortion, but respect the right of choice for all women. I think children of immigrants deserve the same educational benefits offered to all citizens. I believe Americans have the right to own weapons; however, assault weapons have no place in the home or any placer where they are easily accessible.
For years, global warming has concerned our scientists. I do not comprehend why any American would dispute the extensive research that pertains to the future well-being of their children and grandchildren. Protecting the environment should be a priority.
These are a few examples of my “liberal” views. They are only opinions. Is it appropriate for individuals to show disdain toward people whose views differ? “Liberal” is not a dirty word, nor for that matter is “conservative.”
Martin J. Fischer
Columnist was right; back opinion with fact
Couldn’t agree more with Sam Bauman on his column in the July 9 issue of the Appeal addressing the need for voicing accuracy-based opinions. He spoke primarily to an experience he had at the senior center, but as I myself have observed in this forum, this “factual finagling” seems to be rampant.
Sam was especially timely given the letter from Ms. Silver, who erroneously stated “Obamacare comes to mind with it’s 20,000 pages.” She referred to the “rambling doublespeak” in bills submitted by Congress each year. I agree with her and believe the obtuse, muddy, evasive and ambiguous language is intentional in most bills, whether presented on the national or local government stage.
However, her claim as to the 20,000 pages in the Affordable Care Act is not exactly accurate. The law is also referred to as Public Law 111-148 and the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and as enacted is actually only 906 pages long. If you include the subsequent addition of 68 pages to address the “health-related portions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act Of 2010,” that brings it to 974 pages. The subsequent regulations arising from enactment of the law is where the claim apparently comes from, and depending on what source you read, can be anywhere from 10,000 to 40,000 pages. Many of those pages are counted because they simply refer to “Obamacare,” whether they actually address it directly or not. However, her point about the simplicity of the Constitution was right on.