|
|
|
 |
West Newsmagazine
is West St. Louis County's exclusive direct-mailed community newspaper. |
 |
| Letters To The Editor |
|
|
Supporting ObamaTo The Editor: It was somewhat disappointing to read the psychobabble in the letter from Rob Schultz in your Jan. 28 edition. The attitude displayed certainly was inconsistent with the spirit of unity and harmony displayed by the millions of people who assembled on the National Mall to bear witness to the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Schultz asserted that he had no tolerance of racism in any way. However, in his next two paragraphs, he made several racist statements. He asserted that African Americans voted for President Obama because of his race, simple as that, no further intellectual comment required. No rational person could view that as an intellectual comment. In fact, it is a ridiculous comment. President Obama was a far superior candidate who addressed the American people as if they were intelligent individuals rather than mindless idiots who would respond to name calling and baseless charges. He ran almost flawless campaigns in both the primary and general elections. He has demonstrated brilliance in his educational and professional endeavors. In fact, President Obama is one of the most brilliant politicians of our time. It is clear to me that African Americans and the millions of others who voted for President Obama based their decision on these attributes, not his race. Schultz asserts that African Americans voted for President Obama because he made tons of idiotic promises that will give them stuff and take from others. That is another ridiculous comment. President Obama made no promises to African Americans that were not applicable to all Americans. In fact, President Obama, as well as his nominees to the various Cabinet positions, have stressed that his administration will be an administration that will adhere to the Constitution and the laws, unlike the previous administration. By what law will he take stuff from others? This appears to be an effort to continue the racial divisiveness that has plagued this nation for far too long. Millions of people voted for President Obama because he is committed to work toward eliminating this divisiveness and bring all Americans together to work toward solving the numerous problems that affect us all. Obviously, there are some individuals who are unwilling to accept that challenge and unwilling to work for what is best for our country. Schultz called the readers' attention to the fact that he used the word "black" to describe people of that race, not the term "African American." I suppose he views the word "black" as a derogatory term to denigrate African Americans and indicate they are not "real Americans." Again, the effort to continue the divisiveness referred to above. I hope that Schultz would acquaint himself with the numerous contributions, e.g., the invention of the electric traffic signal, blood plasma, etc., made by African Americans. He should be aware that African Americans have served in every war in which this country has engaged. African Americans fought to protect the freedoms of others when they did not enjoy those same freedoms in this country. After serving in the military, African Americans returned to this country to massive discrimination and in many instances were lynched; some while in military uniform. There is no other group in this nation that has suffered the racism and discrimination that African Americans have and yet have remained loyal to this nation and willing to work for the good of the nation and the good of all the peoples of the nation. It appears to me that, like Rush Limbaugh and those of that ilk, Schultz is finding it quite difficult to reconcile his philosophy of white supremacy and the election of President Obama to the highest office in the land and leader of the free world. President Obama is a reality. Does that make the philosophy of white supremacy invalid? In order to rationalize this reality, Schultz has concluded that those who vote for President Obama are not smart and have no idea of what they have done. Therefore, President Obama should not have been elected. To the contrary, I believe those who voted for President Obama were smart and very much aware that they selected the superior candidate. Further, I believe that those who voted for President Obama are aware that the effort to solve the serious problems confronting this nation is just beginning. There are those of the Limbaugh ilk who want the president to fail, without regard to the suffering that will cause to millions of citizens. I am opposed to discrimination in any form. However, based on the contents of Schultz’s letter, I am afraid that our definitions of those issues may be quite different. This nation is faced with problems unlike any since the 1930s. There are more than 11 million people unemployed and hundreds are losing their homes weekly. We are involved in two wars that are a drain on our economic well-being. A major facet of President Obama's campaign was an appeal to our better angels, encouragement to put the divisiveness and hatred behind us and come together and work to solve the many problems facing this nation. That is in the best interest of the nation and all of our citizens. I would hope that every citizen is willing to work to that end.
James O. Gordon St. Albans
Cut taxesTo The Editor: Apparently liberals are the only people who can define the proper direction this country should pursue. If we disagree with that direction, we can look forward to admonishment from the likes of Beverly Wall in her letter printed on Feb. 25. To quote, "To hope our President fails at his attempts to put America on a plan of recovery is selfish, ignorant and un-American. What we need is action." Wall thinks action is the answer. Action without planning simply is the act of children playing, an apt metaphor for the current administration. Not reading an 1,100-page bill before voting is the answer for her. Spending money, not hers, is the answer. Running up massive debt is the answer, as long as it goes to projects she deems worthy. She, like all liberals, thinks government is the answer. It never occurs to Wall that by not spending a dime of taxpayer dollars, the cutting of taxes might work to stimulate the economy. It works every time it is tried. The market has been diving since Barack Obama was elected. There is no plan, no direction, just an attempt to pay off Democrat constituencies with our tax dollars to buy future votes. Let us try this action. Cut the capital gains tax to 5 percent and set it for 10 years as such. Cut personal and corporate taxes 20 percent and fix for 10 years. Housing and the stock market will roar. Business, once it collectively knows the future playing field is fixed from a government meddling viewpoint, will move forward quickly. People as economically ignorant as Wall are the reason this country is in trouble now. They believe when the government spends money it magically appears from nowhere. Twenty-five percent of American taxpayers pay 86 percent of federal taxes collected. Is that fair? Is it fair for the government to take 40 percent of your pay but none from the guy next door? It punishes success by forcing those who produce to pay hard-earned money to those who produce nothing. Does that strike anyone out there with a brain as a long-term viable strategy? After a while, the so-called rich, being taxed to death, give up. Why start a company when you must give the government 40 to 55 percent (FICA, state, feds, fees, etc.) of your earnings? Is it worth it? And guess what? When those people stop starting businesses, everyone else has no job. There is a brilliant action plan. By the way, did you know, if Missouri accepts federal stimulus money for increasing unemployment pay, we must permanently change our Missouri unemployment laws to reflect that increase? Permanently. So after the three years or so of government cash runs out, guess who is stuck paying the tab? Missouri businesses. So businesses will factor in that cost and hire fewer people. Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone without first taking it from someone else. Once the rich are tapped out, the government is coming for the Beverly Walls of the world, and sadly, that day is not far off.
Richard Bader Manchester
Political correctnessTo The Editor: The interesting letters that always contradict Thomas Sowell's columns are unified in one position: political correctness. Sowell addresses this in his column. One side fits all. Turner Classic Movies recently played the movie "The Devil and Daniel Webster," based on Stephen Vincent Benet's book. It shows a New Hampshire young farmer who is about to lose everything and sells his soul to the devil to get out of debt. Things begin to fall apart and he falls down and asks for forgiveness. The devil then demands his soul. Webster becomes the young man's defense lawyer and calls for a trial by jury. The devil honors this by calling it up from hell with the judge from the Salem witch trial. Stacked deck. Webster did not object, knowing it was useless. Webster begins with a great patriotic statement and ends with one question to the jury, "What would you have done with a second chance?" The jury gathers and finds for the defendant. The devil tears up the contract. Nancy Pelosi did the same thing as the devil in the movie: Stack the deck for the stimulation bill and then call it bipartisan when no Republican congressman voted for it and neither did 10 Democrats. We see the same ‘ole, same ‘ole from the political correct left. George W. Bush lied. Never mind Prime Minister Tony Blair explained all to the British Parliament, joining America in the War on Terrorism in Iraq after 15 months with many truckloads of stuff leaving Iraq and moving to Syria by Saddam Hussein. Now we hear about Syria's new rocket launch area and even mention of nuclear stuff. Moveon.org billionaire owner George Soros' mouthpiece blames Bush for everything and continues this parade of nonsense to make Barack Obama look like the savior of America, let alone the world. Soros tried to break the banks of Poland and England and almost succeeded. Looks like he has the perfect accomplices to succeed here in America: "bipartisan" politically correct Obama and the Democrats.
Alan D. Shaffer Creve Coeur
Illusions of privacyTo The Editor: Regarding “Privacy gone,” from Cindy Safronoff in the Feb. 25 issue of West Newsmagazine, I have a couple of questions. Question One: Has there ever been a society in which the powers that be do not monitor the citizens? I can think of no civilization, regardless of ideology, that did not have people in power keeping watch over the common folks. Any illusion of privacy is just that, an illusion. Technological advances exacerbate the issue, but it has always been and always will be the case that government watches the people. They have to in order to stay in power. The "free" country to which you refer is Utopia, which was described in 1516 in a work of fiction by Sir Thomas More, which is itself based on Plato's "The Republic" from the fourth century. Question Two: When did driving a car become a right? It seems to me that the last time I read a handbook (I had to renew my driver's license in 2006), according to Missouri statute, driving was still considered a privilege. In order to obtain a license to drive, one must sign the application stating that this is understood by the applicant. By placing oneself behind the wheel of an automobile and driving on public roadways, one is required to acknowledge that they will observe certain driving standards and rules of which one is being "surveilled" by traffic enforcement as well as being subject to the rules and orders issued by such. Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 302, is a good starter resource for questions about driving privileges and requirements. I see no reason to reject license plate scanners based on an invasion of privacy premise whatsoever. Please drive safely.
Robert Savage St. Louis County
Seat belt useTo The Editor: Yes, seat belts certainly are an integral part of operating a vehicle. I am not sure how you can determine the difference between a seat belt not being worn and one that unlatched somehow upon impact or incident. Usually, putting my seat belt on is the last action I take when getting "set" to drive, but I end up harnessed. As for the primary seat belt law, I agree we need more police sirens and lights at rush hour while sitting in our cars with seat belts on so the police can ticket non-conformists. In addition, the state might receive kickbacks and revenue for passing this? Being a fool should not be against the law in this case.
Steve Weis St. Louis County
Wildwood factsTo The Editor: A few facts in response to Don Nichoalds letter to the editor regarding Wildwood's purchase of 63 acres to serve as a community park: 1. The Wildwood City Council unanimously adopted, by resolution, the Wildwood Parks and Recreation Action Plan in 2007 and that has not been put on hold. 2. When Wildwood surveyed its citizens in 2007, a slight majority of residents did favor a sales tax to support parks and recreation programs. In responding to a majority of its residents, the City Council put the sales tax issue, "Proposition P," on the ballot. Prop P failed in a 53-47 percent vote in November. However, as has always been the case, Wildwood will continue to budget accordingly and give its residents the best parks and recreation programs possible. 3. The funding for the land purchase was unanimously voted into the 5-Year Capital Improvement Budget by City Council in 2007. The Wildwood City Council unanimously approved the land acquisition of the 63-acre parcel in 2009. 4. The city was able to purchase the 63-acre property at a discounted price of $32,000 per acre due to the state of the economy. 5. Wildwood does not have a real estate or property tax. When those annual tax bills come from St. Louis County, you will not see a line item for Wildwood because Wildwood does not have a property tax. 6. The only "new" tax the incorporation of Wildwood brought to its citizens is the half-cent capital improvement sales tax that the voters approved in 1998. The half-cent CID sales tax levied in a portion of our Town Center does not supply revenue to the city of Wildwood. 7. The city of Wildwood is in excellent economic condition with more than $11 million of reserves in the general fund. Wildwood has reserves - not too many cities on the planet can make that claim. 8. Even after a very aggressive 2009, where Wildwood plans to replace several more bridges, build Phase 1 of the Manchester Road Streetscape, repave many of our streets, replace many street slabs and sidewalks, and purchase land for a future community park, Wildwood's capital fund will have more than $5 million in reserves. So, in response to Nichoalds, I respectfully submit that Wildwood City Council has considered the desires of the citizenry and the challenging economic times, and we have not "ignored all and forged ahead," as Nichoalds suggests.
Bart Cohn Wildwood City Councilmember Ward 1
Oppose killing deerTo The Editor: We are vehemently opposed to the decision made regarding the regulation of the deer population by shooting them. We love the deer and the wildlife, which is what Town & Country is all about and why we chose to move here. Furthermore, legislating what we can or cannot do on our own property is un-American. We take great offense to the lack of consideration given to the group opposed to the killing of deer on our property. We will not allow any sharpshooters on our property, we will not be told how high our bird feeders have to be and will not be told which of God's creatures we can feed or not feed. These are the most ridiculous mandates we have ever heard of. The percentage of Town & Country residents who feel the same as us is large. You will hear our voice by our votes this spring.
Julie and John Wright Town & Country
To The Editor: There is a reason we are called the green zone. I did not move here to have someone come onto my property and do something that I am vehemently opposed to. I do no want something shot and killed on my property. And it is my property - no one else's. I get great joy from the varied life that inhabits my back yard - whatever that may be. How ridiculous to have sharpshooters in neighborhoods with children and pets. How ridiculous to even have this up for consideration. I now hear others not living in Town & Country saying that they would never move to such a place. I, too, will be casting my vote in April.
Doris Perry Town & Country
Responding to letters
To The Editor:In response to the many "letters to the editor" in your Feb. 25 issue. Rick and Ann Standal - nice letter, good point. Joan Shaver - George W. Bush was in office less than nine months when 9/11 occurred and his administration should have been more aware that we were vulnerable to terrorist attacks considering the many that happened during Bill Clinton's administration, including the first World Trade Center bombing, the attempted crashing of a plane on the White House in 1995, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole Bombing in 2000. To suggest that Bush had nothing to do to prevent another attack over the next seven years makes you the one who is delusional. Noel Lavanchy - nice letter, right on, where is the change? Beverly Wall - Spending does not equal stimulus. It equals earmarks, debt and higher taxes. More has been spent by our government in the first two months of 2009 than was spent on the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, and Hurricane Katrina combined. You want stimulus then give the money to the American taxpayers. If you take $9.7 trillion in bailout commitments divided by 134 million tax filers, that equals a one-time payment of $72,000. It is enough money to pay off 90 percent of all home mortgages. Recently, Mark Toenjes asked for recent accomplishments of the conservative movement in America. I feel the recent legacy of the conservative movement has been to defend the fundamental principles upon which America is conducted outlined by our founding fathers in the United States Constitution. Washington has blurred the political lines and the principle of "self determination" has never been in greater danger. Many of the things that I may brag about, including the preservation of family values, upholding restraints on abortion law, supporting the military and defending our nation, may indeed be areas that you would disagree with. However, I defend your right to do so and I appreciate the civil discourse that you express when debating issues. I also commend your efforts to volunteer. Keep in mind that conservative principles include outspoken belief in God and country, a fiscal policy rooted in small government, and free market capitalism. In foreign policy, conservatives advocate a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.
Paul Hollis Wildwood
To The Editor: Beverly Wall, it would seem you left out a key word in your closing statement: Working together to support the stimulus package is the beginning of our socialist transformation for a renewed America. I do not know what the West County Action Committee is about, but from the sound of it, it sounds much like MoveOn.org, the Fairness Doctrine, and some of the other left-wing organizations or legislative changes that try to sound like they have America's best interests at heart. Please tell us as to why we should get behind such a package? A package that dwarfs what debt America has built cumulatively since the dawn of our great country? A debt that our children and their children, let alone us, will never be able to repay? A package that none of our elected reps have read? A package that promotes spending well beyond the average life span of a recession? A package that rewards lying and irresponsibility (and is simply a continuation of Obama's cabinet selection process)? If that is the case, if someone gets $5,000 after five years, then when do we get our $30,000 for paying our debt religiously for 30 years? This is as un-American as it gets. And while the Republicans are not without guilt, the Democrats have the nerve to point fingers of blame at them? My wife and I, like many others, make decisions every day to live within our means so that we can afford to do things for our children and invest for our retirement. Currently, the government does not allow us any tax deductions for many of these decisions, as we fall into the so-called "rich" category. We both work and have pensions (so far), but we cannot get a deduction for IRAs, college expenses, college loan interest expenses, and even our exemptions and deductions are capped. Because the Alternative Minimum Tax has never been adjusted for inflation, we have the privilege of paying more federal taxes because we pay more state taxes, thanks to previous liberal taxation policies. Despite of all this, we give generously to charities for the blessings we have received. Well, we want our reps to swing by and see how we live the rich life. My wife and I went to state colleges, worked hard at our jobs to get ahead, and asked our government for nothing while doing it. We buy pre-owned cars, rarely vacation and do not own stocks or real estate. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush had the vision to lower taxes to promote growth and put money in our pockets. President Bill Clinton raised taxes and now Barack Obama will raise them, significantly. We do not see the merits of spending out in 2011, 2012 and beyond when by most accounts the recession will be over. The only purpose this serves is to expand government, pay back those who elected Obama, and pave the way for his re-election in 2012. You specify support for education - we already spend too much. More money only serves to pay off the teachers’ union. The poor and unemployed, let's clean up all the fraud in welfare and healthcare and see what is available. Now they talk about cutting defense under the guise of it costs too much. In these times, we would think spending money on tax-generating defense jobs would be better than re-sodding the Mall, or saving a mouse in San Francisco. If auto workers’ jobs are so important to save, why not defense jobs? Their rationale, as usual, is weak at best and transparent as usual. This is the land of equal opportunity. Obama and his believers believe it is the land of equal results, regardless of your ethics or your efforts. We need action alright, but blind, ponderous spending is not what we had in mind. How could well placed tax cuts coupled with meaningful and shorter term spending programs place a recovery on hold? What Obama/Biden/Pelosi and their ilk promote is shear lunacy. My wife and I share no values with these people, and it is not just financial. Abortion, stem cell research, crime, activist judges, illegal immigration, defense and the war on terror, terrorist handling, foreign policy. Little if anything on their current agenda will we support. Our subdivision board recently included a number of individuals who did not share the majority of our residents' interests and we were successful in removing them from their positions at annual elections in February. We only wish Obama and his supporters could be removed as expediently.
Jon and Lisa Schulte West County
To The Editor: I see from the responses that I have received from the Standals and others that perhaps I ought to explain my position in simpler terms. But I am not going to do that because, if you had read my previous letter, you would know that I clearly argued that ad-hominem attacks, that is, attacks against a person’s character, absolutely have no place in rational discourse. So it should not be surprising that if the Standals are suggesting that a debate be conducted on its merits, then I cannot help but agree wholeheartedly. But what merits are the Standals talking about? Rather, just like Rob Schulz, they chose to attack me personally; in this case, comparing me to Hitler and the rise of Nazism in the 1930s. For the record, these were people who committed the most heinous crimes. They were tried and many of them were hanged for what they did. How can you even possibly make such a comparison? You are, in effect, saying that I should suffer physically for my beliefs and opinions. Is this what you truly believe? The Standals also accuse me of having intimidated and threatened others. Furthermore, they evidently also possess the means, without having ever met me or talked with me, to claim that I am only comfortable when around people who completely share my point of view. I do not believe that any race is inferior to any other, I do not believe in violence of any kind and I do not believe in silencing any point of view. If I am to be associated with historical personages, it would most certainly not be Nazis. Second, exactly who have I intimidated and who have I threatened? I took issue, rightfully, with Schulz because of the attacks that he made against the people who were planning on voting for Barack Obama. My letter did not contain any language that could be even remotely found to have been intimidating or threatening. In fact, Schulz penned a letter in response to overwhelming criticism; nothing in my letter prevented him or hindered him in any way from doing so. Third, I associate with a broad range of people, many of whom agree with me but many do not. Finally, I am far from being a “stereotypical” liberal (whatever that is). I have devoted considerable thought to my positions, such that very few of them fit neatly into tidy little categories. Quite the contrary, I am impressed by how the world seems to be full of a lot of grays and that there is much about contemporary life that seems to elude facile solutions. So, I am anxiously awaiting the debate the Standals suggested. At the moment that they decide to debate the issues, rather than simply saying that those that disagree with them are less than human, then I will be there to either prove or disprove my case. Make sure you prepare well. I will.
John Walker West County
Censorship?To The Editor: Since when is rating something so you can make an informed decision even remotely considered censorship (regarding the St. Louis County Library’s new rating system for teen books)? Censorship means making something unavailable to read. A rating system allows me to choose what I want to read.
Joan Newberry St. Louis County
To The Editor: To all those who complain about censorship I have a question, "What are you trying to hide?" I think it goes back to truth in marketing. If something has poison in it then label it as such. The consumer can then make his or her own decision as to whether it will be bad for them or not. That goes for bad food or bad books. So simple a solution that people overlook it.
Sue Phillips St. Louis County
|
|
