A+ A A-

'I want to live75 years' was personal opinion, not social policy

To The Daily Sun,

Again last week, we witnessed Mr. Meade's inability to tell the whole truth. Yes, he picks at pieces of the truth, but then weaves them in such a way as to relay a lie to his readers.

Meade's deceit stems from a Sept. 17 piece in The Atlantic titled "Why I Hope To Die at 75", in which former White House health care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel outlined his views on end-of-life health care and his reasoning that 75 is the ideal age to die. He explained that he wishes to die at age 75, "Seventy five. That's how long "I" want to live: 75 years."

Of course, Meade and the right-wing media jumped on these personal comments as an opportunity to resuscitate the thoroughly debunked claims that the ACA would create "death panels."

Dr. Emanuel does not say "we should all die when we reach the magic age of 75", as Meade claims. He is voicing a personal opinion, but with Meade and Fox News, opinions appear to trump facts. Emanuel does state that "once I have lived to 75, my approach to my health care will completely change. I won't actively end my life, but I won't try to prolong it either.

Emanuel goes on to say that, "I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong, I am certainly not scorning or dismissing people who want to live on despite their physical and mental limitations. I'm not even trying to convince anyone I'm right. Indeed, I often advise people of this age group on how to get the best medical care available in the United States for their ailments. That is their choice, and I support them."

He further states that, "I am not advocating 75 as the official statistic of a complete, good life in order to save resources, ration health care, or address public-policy issues."

It's quite apparent that Meade relied on his conservative "sources" and did not read Emanuel's article, or, if he did, just refused to accept the facts of the article so as to promote his political agenda.

Meade giving credibility to Sarah Palin for statements in support of the mythical "death panels," or any other statements, is a disservice to conservatives — my personal opinion.

L.J. Siden

Gilmanton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:58

Hits: 180

Apparently Mr. Meade thinks history started with Pres. Obama

To The Daily Sun,

I am writing to respond to a column written by Mr. Meade on Nov.18.

The title of his column "By the Company He Keeps" got me to thinking that he would go back in time as he did in one instance to remind us of times past. I was hoping to read his version of Iraq-Iran war, of how Mr. Reagan, Rumsfeld and others supplied Saddam Hussein with money, weapons of mass destruction, intelligence, etc. to keep Iran from taking control of Iraq oil fields.

The end results were 1 million dead in Iran, and 250,000 dead in Iraq. It would have been good to read his opinion of weapons for hostages with Lt. Col. North.

The continued complaint of increase of taxes left out Mr. Reagan, who raised taxes 11 times during his eight years in office. President George H.W. Bush ran for president saying, "Read my lips. No new taxes." In August 1990 Saddam Hussein, a great friend of President Reagan, Vice President Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld, and others invaded Kuwait. A friend turned enemy overnight.

President Bush (41), much to his credit with American forces and a coalition of many countries, launched Desert Storm on Jan. 17, 1991 — a war that lasted 100 hours.

President Clinton known as a draft dodger was elected to president for the next eight years. He had many ups and downs, impeached in 1998 over his affair with Monica Lewinsky, lying under oath and as always anything else a right-winger could come up with.

President George W. Bush (43) was selected by the Supreme Court to be the next president. He ran saying, no nation-building, rebuild infrastructure, protect the border.

How did that work out for you, Mr. Meade?

A part list of company he kept was Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. The rest is well known by most people today.

Mr. Meade has apparently forgotten everything that has happened in this country before President Obama was elected. I find most of his column a repeat of Fox News; other parts are his opinion or his right under the First Amendment to say anything he wants to. I do agree with his description of the Rev. Al Sharpton. I will ask him where he got the information that he has been asked for his input for the next attorney general to replace Mr. Holder.

It was a very cheap shot and uncalled-for to include Twana Brawley, a case that happened in 1987 while President Obama was in his middle 20s.

Perhaps it would be nice if Mr. Meade could tell us in his next column what we are to expect from the "party of 'No'" in the next two years. I will remind all in the Lakes Region that most of the bottled water they drink is tap water.

Henry Osmer

Hill

 

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:45

Hits: 175

Obama is never one to take responsibility for his own words

To The Daily Sun,

The failures of the Affordable Care Act ain't his fault. It was the Republicans who made him lie, he had to. Them and the Tea Party, and the earthquakes, and the weather, he couldn't help it people, can't you see that? How could he get a huge health-care bill passed if he told the truth that costs would rise, many couldn't keep their doctors or their insurance, that deductibles would soar and co-pays rise, let alone the independent health care advisory boards that will decide if elderly get necessary treatment or are just kept comfortable while they die? He had to use deceit and lies. There was no other way folks. Those darn Republicans, how dare they reveal the truth, hold to conservative values and actually try to follow the Constitution and laws, worst of all they went around and spilled the beans.

Not exactly what Obama said, but pretty close. Never one to own up and take responsibility for his words or actions, he again is looking for a pass from his friends and to blame his critics. Even most of the mainstream media including SNL and the late night comics on TV are taking their shots at him now that they realize this emperor has no clothes.

Have to love it when his supporters say he did the best he could under the circumstances. Which circumstances were those? The ones where his party controlled the House and the Senate and he was president and still couldn't enforce immigration law? Created a sham of a foreign policy? Spent billions saving the auto companies (i.e. the unions) and GM still went bankrupt? Jobs and wages are stagnate, welfare and unemployment are at record rates and scandals are the keystone of his administration?

Democrats ran as fast and far from this president in this midterm, but the people spoke loudly. They are sick of the lies, fraud, deceit and all those who spread and support them. Good for us.

Steve Earle

Hill

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:40

Hits: 60

'No' means 'no'; we don not want wind turbines in Alexandria

To The Daily Sun,

We do not tolerate schoolyard bullies, cyber bullies, workplace bullies, domestic bullying, and even siblings that bully each other. We believe when someone says, "no", their objection should be respected. One definition of bullying is: a dominating, overbearing person or entity who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people. Bullying can be described as health-harming, mistreatment of one or more persons by one or more perpetrators. Bullying is considered abusive conduct that threatens, humiliates, or harms another.

I live in Alexandria, and our town has been repeatedly approached by corporate industrial wind developers that want to "set up shop" here on our pristine ridgelines in our very rural community. These corporate developers are global, multibillion-dollar companies with a well paid staff of corporate lawyers, that are looking to protect their investment and those of their stakeholders, not the people or ecosystems that thrive here.

Alexandria has repeatedly said, "no" to corporate industrial wind turbine projects in our town. We had a resolution vote in March 2013 expressing the people's sentiment against industrial wind turbines here. In March 2014 we adopted a binding ordinance that prohibits the siting or operation of corporate energy systems controlled by state and federal energy policies — such as corporate industrial wind — within the town of Alexandria. Our town Master Plan speaks of maintaining the rural aesthetics of the town. Public meetings have revealed over and over again the overwhelming voice of the people saying, "no" to corporate industrial wind projects in Alexandria.

Yet, Energias de Portugal Renewables (EDPR), a global Portuguese corporation with far more money and power than the people of Alexandria, continues to force the Spruce Ridge wind project against our objection. They are corporate bullies that even went so far as to file suit against the town because our selectmen listened to, and represented the objection of the people to grant a conditional building permit for a MET tower needed by EDPR to gather wind and bat data for their corporate project. The town of Alexandria was counseled to grant the permit because we had no legal basis to deny it. We were forced to comply against our will.

Now, EDPR has filed with the FAA for 29 turbines spanning five towns including Alexandria, and even stated they intend to move forward with a state application that could permit them to construct the project. The SEC would have the final say — not the community affected by the project, but a conglomerate of state agencies known as the Site Evaluation Committee.

EDPR claimed they listened to the people Alexandria and that is why they reduced the number of turbines within our town. But "no" means "no."  We don't want any industrial turbines here. Is it okay to bully so long as you reduce the bullying? Generally speaking, we find it unacceptable to tolerate bullying to any degree in society. It should be unacceptable for EDPR to be dominating, overbearing, habitually badgering, intimidating, and threatening, towards the people and ecosystems of rural Alexandria. EDPR, stop bullying the people of Alexandria.

Michelle Sanborn

Alexandria

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:37

Hits: 95

Our government is increasingly antogonistic to religious freedom

To The Daily Sun,
In response to L.J. Siden's letter of Nov. 18. Mr. Siden should write about things he knows something about. L.J. writes, "it is virtually impossible to argue that he (Jesus) was anything but a progressive liberal thinker." It seems that Mr. Siden has only a most superficial understanding of who Jesus is, and the meaning of what He taught.

I'll digress a bit, for I think my digression will be instructive. I like to listen to informative CDs while I drive. I usually get them from the public library. They often have CDs put out by the Teaching Company. They're usually college level course lectures. Being that the lecturers are from colleges like Harvard and Princeton, they usually come from a pretty liberal point of view. Well this one I listened to was about the impact of Christianity on Western culture. I really struggle listening to to these, because I have to listen to so much error to glean the little usable knowledge that they pass on. These are college professors. The one who was assigned to cover the Gospel of John, in 40 minutes of lecturing couldn't outline the theme of this gospel. He was clueless. I'm a Bible teacher and I wouldn't let this guy teach in our Sunday school class. He seemed to think that the main show in the Gospel of John is numerology, not the revelation of Jesus as God the Son and the confrontation and crucifixion that arose as a result of this, and the salvation we can now receive as a consequence of these things. I offer this as an introduction to liberal understanding of the Christian Church.

Jesus is in no way what we call a progressive. If Mr. Siden had understood the scriptures he would have never made such an ignorant and arrogant statement. An originalist maybe, a fundamentalist, but not a progressive or a liberal as what those terms have come to describe.

As to originalist — in the Gospel of John Chapter 8 in response to the Jews questioning Him as to who He is, Jesus answers in verse 58 "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." The Jews knew what He meant. It is why they wanted to kill Him. Abraham lived some 2000 years before Jesus. This was a claim that He was God the Son and that He preexisted Abraham, before He became a man in Mary's womb.

As to fundamentalist — In Matthew chapter 5 verse 17 Jesus says, " Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." You should read through to verse 20. Jesus mission was to clean up the corruption that had occurred in Judaism, and to show the nature of God as He has always been. Us gentiles were to be added in latter.

Wisdom from the Book of Proverbs, many of which are lessons in diligence, industry and wisdom, and a biblical understanding of human nature were instrumental in the founding of our nation and we prospered as a result. To ignore these and pick and choose Jesus' teachings in the service of a godless regime, as Mr. Siden does, is a humongous error. It is to say that a government — that is increasingly antagonistic to religious freedom, that forbids exercises of prayer and Bible reading in public school, forbids the teaching of creation, indoctrinates our children in the theory of evolution as the truth, forgoes supporting the church's teaching against sexual immorality - that this government redistributing wealth is the same as the early church devoting themselves to prayer and the Apostles' teaching, being lead by the Holy Spirit to sell their possessions and lay the proceeds at the Apostles feet.

Make no mistake about it, progressives are following in the footsteps of Marx, Engels and Lenin, not Jesus. Are some Christians being duped into following them? Yep.

Every Christian is indeed admonished to have a genuine good deed inspiring concern for the poor and I do believe that the government can and should have some kind of roll as a reflection of that concern, but not the major thrust of it, and certainly not to spend money that it doesn't have and that it has no hope of ever paying back, on policies that encourage indolence, discourage diligence and divide rich against poor, black against white, mother against child, that encourage our children in sexual deviance, and increasingly take away our religious liberty.

Mr. Siden also labels Jesus as a pluralist. "Hear oh Israel the Lord thy God is one." "All who came before me are robbers and thieves." "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it." These are just a few quotes from Jesus concerning this. How is it that you say He is a pluralist. Or is it that, that is what you liberals do, is to rewrite history, and you expect to get away with it.

John Demakowski
Franklin

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:33

Hits: 140

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN