Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
One can hardly find fault with Nancy Smith’s little homily on racism in her Aug. 15 letter, “Speaking back to racist comment.”
Unless, of course, her encounter with a bigot in the vicinity of the Romney campaign event in Basalt is being reported to us as representative and indicative of something, in which case she is dabbling in the fallacy of guilt by association.
She herself wore an Obama T-shirt to the event. Are we therefore to infer that Romney appearances just naturally attract Obama supporters?
That said, she calls on us to speak out against racism, so here goes.
To me Exhibit A of institutionalized racism in America is Eric Holder’s Justice Department, which turns a blind eye to voter intimidation by Black Panthers, but routinely sues any state with a sizable Anglo population that attempts to enforce existing immigration law and/or require minimal, reasonable evidence of citizenship and residency when people register to vote.
And then there is our “post-racial” president: The one who miraculously never heard any of Jeremiah Wright’s all-star sermons on white America’s chickens coming home to roost. The one who concluded that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly.” The one who appointed Van Jones to a high-level position. The one whose son, if he had one, “would probably have looked a lot like Trayvon” – an inane comment serving no purpose whatsoever except to further inflame the racial grievance industry led by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
And the one who, in July 2008, bizarrely called for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful … as the nation’s military.” The resulting specter of a paramilitary force, analogous to Hitler’s brown shirts, possessing the power to neutralize local police departments and the National Guard, was enough to have had Americans buying guns at a record rate ever since.
Inasmuch as Ms. Smith has expressed admiration for the Freedom Riders in the 1960s, I don’t know what to say to her except that Barack Obama is not Atticus Finch, and his attorney general is no Robert F. Kennedy.
How can it be that every deficit-complaining, Romney and Ryan, Tea Party supporter fails to see that every unpaid-for, deficit-creating policy, be it Medicare Part B, the Bush tax cuts, the “off-budget” wars, and banking deregulation and bailouts, were Republican initiatives?
And how can they, after the still-rumbling international bank debacle, want more deregulation and less government, without seeing that it is corporations and the financial industries that are writing federal legislation and the tax codes, and that these are the forces behind the government they so dislike and distrust?
Do they not see that all the millions pouring into conservative candidates are there in the hope of preserving the favorable status of the tax structure for the very wealthy, and for a Supreme Court that consistently rules in the favor of wealth and corporate power over the rights and well-being of the public and the common man?
I will be the first to admit that I am not as informed as I should be regarding the Grand Avenue Bridge alignment debate. However, one thing that seems to be conspicuously absent from the debate so far, at least as reported in the media, is a discussion regarding the cost of the two preferred options.
Until all the costs are known, including the appraised value of the property that would be condemned, it is simply too early in the process to choose one alternative over the other.
I urge all of the stakeholders to hold off predetermining a favorite option until the true cost of each can be factored into the discussion.
The Post Independent’s Aug. 17 front page article on the Garfield County underwater mortgage debacle stated: “But local real estate experts say there are several options for homeowners who … owe more than the house could now sell for.”
In point of fact, any federal relief for Garfield County underwater homeowners is simply political hot air because the bankers are not rewriting or reducing existing underwater mortgages. The Federal Reserve has pumped up these lender’s balance sheets with trillions in zero interest rate money and there is no financial incentive for these bankers to take a haircut and write down these underwater loans.
That is why local governments in California, Nevada, Illinois, Florida and New York are now playing hardball with the bankers by exploring the possibility of exercising the constitutional powers of eminent domain to acquire the underwater mortgages at deep discounts (current market values) to wipe out the negative equity caused by the real estate bubble.
In Garfield County, this eminent domain underwater mortgage rescue program starts with the clear realization by the Garfield County commissioners that until these underwater mortgages are wiped out, no real local economic recovery can begin.
Therefore, homeowners who are underwater and seeking liberation from the shackles of their mortgage must look elsewhere for new county commissioners to fight the good fight on their behalf. Mike Samson, John Martin and Tom Jankovsky do not have the political courage to carry this constitutionally authorized strategy for underwater mortgage homeowner relief to fruition.
I just read Dr. Mike Stahl’s letter of Aug. 20 about Obamacare, and I have some questions.
First, like most who disagree with President Obama, Dr. Stahl has plenty to say about how it will drive up costs, but gives no examples. He points out a perceived problem, but offers no solution.
What specifically is wrong with the Affordable Health Care Act?
He talks about “Faceless bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services” making decisions. How is that different than faceless bureaucrats with insurance agencies?
Does he believe insurance companies are doing a good job and should be left alone? What does he think should be done to expand health care to all? And, out of curiosity, does he believe affordable quality health care is an inalienable right or a privilege that can be denied?
Secondly, Dr. Stahl uses the slur “Democrat Party.” One wonders if he knows the difference between an adjective and a noun. It could be a typo, but due to the tone of the letter, I doubt it. The term “Democrat Party” has been used since Dewey (and recently at the urging of Fox News) to purposely demean Democrats. Does Dr. Stahl intend to insult his Democratic neighbors and patients? Probably not. But I do think he is watching too much Fox News and listening to too much Limbaugh.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
When I look back on my most significant learning moments — meaning, the times when I felt I had learned a skill or gained a truly impactful and resonant piece of information — very few…