on ‘squad’ wasn’t racial
I watched a portion of the Mueller hearing before the House Intelligence Committee. On the portion that I watched, among the questioners were three young female Democratic Committee members of color, two black and one Hispanic. All were on record as favoring an impeachment inquiry. None was a member of the “squad.” There are undoubtedly dozens of additional Democrats of color in the House who feel about Trump as these four do.
If Trump’s motive for his attack on the “squad” was racism rather than their anti-American rant, wouldn’t he have taken aim at the entire cabal of far-Left Democrats of color rather than only at them?
On Hong Kong, Trump has lost this Republican
I’m a Republican, looking for a new Republican presidential candidate. The incumbent (whose errors I have forgiven, up to now) has elected to leave the Hong Kong democracy movement flat, without even rhetorical support.
The lessons of the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence are not lost on me, nor the lessons of Munich and appeasement in the ’30s. This country stands (or stood) on the principle of supporting democracy overseas to promote peace and human rights.
Trump has chosen to cozy up to Vladimir, Xi and Kim. They can form a golf foursome at Mar-a-Lago come 2021, preferably with their host; the ex-President.
Stop prioritizing wealth over our own health care
In our privatized health care, we currently pay grossly-overpriced premiums, co-pays, medications and extra fees for services that the medical insurance won’t cover.
Those of us who can afford this health care are literally paying into huge profits and bonuses for the CEOs of the insurance, pharmaceutical and health care companies.
With nationalized healthcare, this excessive profit will not be allowed. Other ways to reduce the cost are the focus on preventive health and providing the type of service that is appropriate for the circumstances, rather than people having to show up in the emergency rooms all the time.
Do we want to live in a country that values the increasing wealth for a few. Or do we want a country that values the health of all its people? It shouldn’t be a difficult choice!
Trump repeating history with rhetoric, policies
I wonder if anyone has compared the Trump presidency to that of Warren G. Harding? Both made cabinet and other appointments to industrial and politicians who were waiting to line their pockets at the expense of public (and now environmental) concerns; set tariffs to discourage foreign trade in favor of American production; lowered taxes on the rich; and, reduced immigration from certain countries.
Harding was saddled with the reputation of leading the most corrupt, scandal-ridden administration ever. His extramarital affairs, international isolationism (against the League of Nations), and distrust of foreigners, were statements of his policies of “normalcy” and “peace and prosperity” in America.
“Make America Great Again” is but a hollow repetition of the post WWI country we lived in. Sinclair Lewis’ “Elmer Gantry” fictionalizes the rise and fall of a charlatan from a small time huckster to a charismatic leader whose corrupt real-life escapades proved his downfall.
On gun control, McSally has plans to do nothing
I have seen numerous calls for Sen. Martha McSally to take a stand on gun control laws. A recent article noted a quote by her via a reporter in Phoenix. “Let’s figure out what we can do that’s meaningful, that’s thoughtful, that’s not political theater in order to stop these crimes,” she said.
Where has our senator been? Does she read the years of polls regarding calls for minimal gun control measures backed by the majority of Americans no matter what political affiliation?
Has she seen the bills in the Senate? On the second point, senator, tell us one controversial issue that in the current landscape of the Presidency that is NOT political theatre? Is this a polite way you are saying you plan to stick to doing nothing?
Left has no facts
on climate debate
Re: the Aug. 19 article “The big threat Big Oil faces in state courts.”
Yes, I am still waiting for the debate.
All that I have heard from the greenies is that “the debate is over” on climate change or global warming or whatever name they want to put on it now.
The opinion piece in the Monday edition by Law Professor Ann Carlson from UCLA is just another example of how the greenies think. She talks as if all that the energy companies do is try to hide some great facts about climate change. All I see is a failed attorney who could not make it in the real world, now teaching her version of how terrible global warming is from her perspective. If someone like her was attacking me, I too would be defending myself with statements that support my position.
Please let me know when this “Great Debate” is scheduled for, prime time, so don’t miss it.
I would love to see the facts presented for all to see. Until then, you can call me STILL WAITING.
Klobuchar coverage shows a media issue
Shortly after Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, a centrist known for years of bipartisan success and high standards, was reported to be one of only a few who could defeat Trump, the New York Times ran a story presenting her leadership style as “mean.” Would a potential male commander-in-chief be similarly labeled? Positive stories from staffers, including a buddy of mine, called her “tough.”
First impressions last (attempted retractions actually solidify the false view), gender stereotypes remain deeply embedded, repetition influences memory, and both name recognition and branding affect likability. This makes the free press crucial to democracy as well as frightfully powerful.
An NPR analysis found the media enabled Trump’s election by egregiously under scrutinizing his record and providing “vast swaths of real estate on air, social media, and print.”
But standing room crowds at Klobuchar’s recent Iowa stops aren’t juicy enough for front page coverage. Who is getting free advertising now and with what effect?
Andrea Molberg Ph.D.
TCC expansion money should be used wisely
As a former employee of the city of Tucson at the Convention Center, I do not understand the importance of maintaining or replacing the water feature in front of the Music Hall. Throughout my years there, I cannot imagine how much water was pumped in to maintain its level as it was losing water as fast as it was taking it in. It would be a shame to add one more drop of water to the site, if anything a monument should be raised to show Tucson the terrible waste of water that was lost. Also, the first ice floor was original and lasted over 30 years and the current one was poured 10 to 15 years ago, and it needs replacing already?
I would like to see the expansion of the TCC, but use the money wisely.