First step toward values' loss
In his letter “Punish flag-burners”, Paul Rinker argues that there ought to be a constitutional amendment so that those who burn the American flag are punished with a serious fine and even jail time. I disagree, and feel compelled to write this letter as he did his.
First, let me say that he and I would agree that there is no circumstance under which burning the American flag is appropriate or remotely justified. I would never advocate for such an action.
No matter for what purpose or protest someone burns the flag, their objection is forgotten and all anyone sees is a smoldering icon. The American flag symbolizes so much good for too many people that nothing else will ever be the case.
However, it is a right in this country to demonstrate as you please.
The flag itself stands for freedom. Jailing people who treat it with disrespect is antithetical to its purpose and existence. Prohibiting a deed — which, while rightly offensive is not innately destructive — is the first step on a journey to the loss of the American values we are now debating.
Mr. Rinker is right that all military service people deserve thanks for their sacrifices made for these ideals of freedom. I think it is wonderful that we live in a country where we have so much liberty that we may be so disrespectful to such a sanctified symbol. And I think it is wonderful that almost everyone so strongly condemns such disrespect.
E.C. Wenzel
Ligonier Township
Sunday, May 14
Nothing for Obama to brag about
Despite their frequent lapses into triumphalism, past Democrat presidents were acutely aware they were on a kind of probation with party elders as to how far they could push their rhetoric or snub the other two branches of government.
But with the radicalization of the Democrat base, and the fact that he was largely elected for being the first black president, President Obama felt no danger when he smugly declared he would “fundamentally transform America” — a highly partisan, ungracious fusillade from the very beginning of his presidency. There was nothing to check him within his party when he lapsed into his frequent triumphalisms, even though he has been proven wrong on all of them.
The gross exaggerations and Teleprompter-induced political rhetoric of Obamaism (“You can keep your doctor and your health plan,” “the war on terror is over,'' “if you've got a business, you didn't build that,'' “the chemical weapons are out of Syria,'' etc.) were left unanswered by his party's moderates and national media.
Thus, this compliance in celebrity politics has brought the worst economic recovery in our history (according to the Federal Reserve); bureaucratic centralism; international policy that has caused disintegration of Middle Eastern states and subsequent mass migration; steady erosion in the war on poverty; burgeoning economic inequality where real wages have not only stagnated but declined; deterioration in race relations; poor schools; colleges that coddle aggrieved students (even the white ones think they're “oppressed'') while charging a fortune and teaching zilch, which is the real oppression; crony capitalism; and a future that does not look good for this country.
In short, there never was any cause to declare any triumphs about anything. So much for “hope and change.''
Stephen M. Sokol
Mt. Lebanon
Monday, May 15
Closed primary decried
No doubt this letter will not be well-received by those in the major-party leadership positions, but I've been asking one particular question since I was 18 years old and just starting to vote, and that is: Why does Pennsylvania still have a closed primary election?
If you're a Republican or Democrat, that's fine, but what about those who claim no party affiliation? Do these folks have nothing to say in a primary election cycle? Talk about disenfranchised voters.
While there have been several viable third-party candidates in the past, none really got off the ground because of the flawed primary system.
It may seem arrogant, but it appears that party leaders on both sides are telling the Libertarians, the Constitutionalists and the independents that you have a voice in our processes, but only when we say that you do.
Well, in this individual's never-to-be-humble opinion — that's wrong.
David J. Bowie
Elizabethtown
Tuesday, May 16
Fracked gas health boon
A recent letter claims “it's critical that we act today to preserve the health of our communities” by protecting them from air pollution from fracking (“Fracking vs. health,” May 9 and TribLIVE). But the author neglects to mention that increased natural gas use made possible by fracking is the top reason Pennsylvania and the rest of the United States have experienced dramatic declines in air pollution, proving to be a boon to public health.
This is something Energy In Depth covered in our recent “Compendium of Studies Demonstrating the Safety and Health Benefits of Fracking.” The report includes dozens of studies that show fracking is protective of public health and has also contributed to significant benefits in terms of improved air quality.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has stated numerous times that air quality continues to improve in the commonwealth, and Pennsylvania Department of Health data show asthma hospitalization rates have dropped significantly since the first Marcellus well was drilled.
The letter author's primary concern seems to be with methane leakage. Environmental Protection Agency data show methane emissions from natural gas systems have fallen 15 percent since 1990, while U.S. natural gas production has increased 70 percent and the economy has grown 75 percent over the same period.
Despite activists' efforts to mislead the public with claims that fracking harms health, reputable data confirm shale development is directly connected to health benefits, while also driving greenhouse gas emissions to 25-year lows and providing much-needed economic growth.
Nicole Jacobs
Hughesville
The writer is Pennsylvania director for Energy In Depth (energyindepth.org).
Wednesday, May 17
Reverse Robin Hood
No matter how you try and dress this up to make it look pretty, you can't. The Republican health care bill is just another version of the reverse Robin Hood the GOP has been dishing out to the masses for years.
This act is purely a way for Republicans to “pay” for President Trump's proposed $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy by taking $880 billion away from Medicaid and billions more from health-care subsidies and cost sharing under the Affordable Care Act.
I don't think Trump understands health care as an issue, since he's praised single-payer plans like Australia's. You know they call it Medicare? So does Canada.
The GOP has planted the seeds of its own destruction with this vote that, even if it doesn't yield a viable bill, will do to the Republican Party what the ACA did to the Democrats in 2009.
I was one of those people who was denied coverage because I take Coumadin, a blood thinner.
We are angry. We see an illegitimate president installed with the help of the Russians and a corrupt FBI trying to tweak the vote.
Sen. Pat Toomey and other Republicans in the Senate can prove me wrong if they vote against repealing ObamaCare. They won't.
My family and friends will remember our friends and our enemies. We never forget our enemies.
Nicholas Balandiat
Baldwin
Thursday, May 18
WHSD: Uniformity, not unity
Recently, a letter was sent to residents of the Woodland Hills School District by high school Principal Kevin Murray, calling for unity within the district. The question is: Do you want unity or uniformity?
There is a difference. Unity is “oneness of mind, as among a number of persons.” Uniformity is “a condition where everything is homogeneous or unvarying” and suggests “a lack of diversity or variation.”
Murray has not called for unity, but uniformity — to go along with the program, to sit back and “let sleeping dogs lie.” This will no longer be the case. Until we are invited to the table and Murray listens objectively to our concerns, Murray is expecting uniformity, keeping the status quo.
Until full responsibility for his actions is admitted and he does the responsible thing, the district will expect uniformity, not unity. As a principal and a football coach, he should know that he cannot expect young men to exhibit self-control if he cannot control his own actions and emotions.
No, we will not sit back and accept things as they are. Too often, the African-American community has been expected to passively accept what this school district and this nation has offered. No longer. The climate of this nation demands of us not to wait, but to take our seat at the table.
The voice of the African-American community will not be silenced, whether at school board meetings or in voting booths. Justice will roll down like water, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Wingfield
Braddock
The writer is pastor of Unity Baptist Church, Braddock, and president of the Greater Braddock Ministerial Association.
Friday, May 19
Amendment prospects
I read a Fox News article on the possibility of using Article V of the Constitution to push for a constitutional convention to add an amendment.
The news article included quotes from Mike Levine, the popular conservative radio talk show host, and former Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. They supported these “core Republican principles”:
• Requiring a balanced budget
• Reducing the federal regulatory burden on the states
• Restoring state sovereignty by eliminating federal mandates and grants
• And allowing the states to override Supreme Court decisions, federal laws and regulations by a two-thirds vote.
The article states that since 32 states are under Republican control, the possibility is within reach.
However, the first principle will never pass because in times of war, the government should be allowed to go into debt.
The other three principles listed have to do with regulations and general government overreach. To remove these completely is extremely unlikely.
The most important Article V amendment anyone should consider should involve term limits for Congress. This amendment would drain the swamp, take the money out of Washington and reduce the power Washington craves.
It would also bring in new blood, fresh ideas and people excited to involve themselves in true public service who listen to their constituents and who are not handcuffed to a political party.
Rich Patton
Franklin Township,
Beaver County
Saturday, May 20
