Awash in shame
I am wondering what a letter writer on Feb. 20 finds "gratuitous, partisan, utterly dishonest, hateful, (and) anti-Trump" about the following statement regarding DACA recipients featured in a recent My View article: "These are the young people that President Trump and the Republicans in Congress would expel from the country."
This strikes me as a simple statement of fact, unless the letter writer takes the position that the president and Republicans are acting against their own will with regard to the plight of these young people. In which case, who is being disingenuous, if not those self-same politicians? Who the heck else is responsible for the current DACA situation?
Anyone who is not yet awash in shame at the duplicitous Trump/Republican government, is truly shameless for failing to recognize and resist what this administration is doing to our democracy and our reputation in the world. The level of denial is beyond belief! And the DACA issue is but one small particle of what is going badly wrong.
Thanks for service
Kudos to Mike Wrede for his years of service to the Phoenix Historical Cemetery and Museum.
Sixty years ago he started volunteering as a Lion’s Club member. For the past 15 years he has been the sexton at the cemetery in charge of burials, paperwork, landscaping and upkeep of the grounds. While serving as president of the Phoenix Historical Society, he facilitated the move from Second Street to its current location adjacent to the cemetery.
Thank you for a job well done and much appreciated by those of us living in Phoenix.
What are Walden's views?
Congressman Greg Walden's constituents need to know exactly where he stands on relevant issues prior to the upcoming 2018 mid-term elections. With the recent mass school shooting in Florida, the continuing issue about gun restrictions has come to the forefront once again.
I ask Walden to please let his constituents know whether he supports the following legislation that would:
- Ban “bump stocks” or other similar devices.
- Require background checks on all gun transfers and sales.
- Ban assault weapons like the AR-15.
- Ban high capacity clips for assault weapons.
- Ban gun ownership on those identified as mentally ill, spousal abusers, or listed on no-fly lists.
As a veteran and gun owner I would certainly appreciate a straight answer to these questions and I would think that no matter which side of the gun restriction issue he is on, his constituents deserve to know his views on this.
What is he thinking?
What is President Trump thinking? When I read that he may propose that "teachers and other school employees" carry weapons, all I could think of is "What?"
Teachers are educated to teach, not to be armed security guards!
Normally, people who are hired as armed guards go through hours of learning gun safety and accuracy.
We don't expect bank tellers to be armed. Banks hire specially trained guards for that purpose. Why would we put this highly dangerous responsibility on our already overburdened teachers? Really, what would be accomplished by arming educators?
In my opinion, a better path would be to make laws that would limit the age (21 years and older) and type — no automatic or assault weapons for anyone — just to mention a couple of obvious criteria. Also, adults (or guardians) should be held accountable for putting weapons in the hands of a minor.
Public broadcasting rocks
I am responding the guest opinion on Feb. 18 complaining about tax dollars being spent on public broadcasting.
Our whole country needs access to all opinions, even though we may disagree with them. It shapes our intellect to mentally argue against diverse opinions. We need more information to be able to make intelligent, informed decisions. Eliminating access to the expert interviews on NPR and PBS now available in rural areas, in an age when small newspapers are dying daily, will harm our democracy.
I disagree with the millions of taxpayer dollars proposed for a grand military parade spectacle that no one wants, but I do understand that my federal tax dollars have often been spent on policies I don’t agree with — this is part of a democracy. You win some, you lose some. But if our current small amount of federal funding is taken away from public broadcasting, people all over the country will lose.
Our democracy depends on informed voters. If we cannot hear qualified experts speaking on vital topics, we operate in the dark. Sound bites on commercial broadcasting do not begin to provide the complex, in-depth information we need to be good citizens. Public broadcasting is an unbelievable bargain.