Proud to be an ‘insane’ supporter of Romero
Re: the Sept. 2 letter “Romero leading Tucson? Voters have gone insane.”
I guess I am insane, according to a “downtowner,” since I am a strong supporter of Regina Romero. As a native Tucsonan of 81 years, I not only voted for her but maxed out on my political contribution. I personally know many of Regina’s supporters, both Democrats and Republicans, and can tell you that no one, no matter how much money they have contributed to her campaign, will tell Regina what to do. She studies the issues and makes up her own mind for what she believes is good for Tucson. I am a Tucson developer and she has supported me and been against me for various reasons.
Just look at her campaign co-chairs, one is a staunch Republican businessman and the other is a strong female environmentalist. Both are well-known and terrific contributors to the Tucson community!
I guess I am insane and proud of it.
Acknowledging white privilege is not bigotry
To clarify misinformation in a letter to the editor, acknowledging white privilege is not synonymous with being bigoted against white people. Acknowledging white privilege is a thoughtful and sometimes painful recognition that those of us who are white have inherent benefits that others do not.
An example: As I sped on I-10 this morning in the “fast lane,” I was frustrated the car in front of me was going “only” the speed limit. As I passed, I noticed a black man driving. It dawned on me, if I get pulled over the worst that might happen to me is a speeding ticket and a stern mini lecture. It is more likely that a person of color getting pulled over will be detained, searched or arrested. That is the white privilege I benefit from.
I feel (and am) safer. I am more likely to get my health-care needs met. I am less likely to be followed in a store. The list goes on ... and on ... and on.
Trump missed point
of Polish event
Distinguishing between “commemoration” and “congratulations” shouldn’t be hard.
If, for example, you go to the cemetery to commemorate your mother’s death, you don’t expect your minister to congratulate you. You hope she will understand your lasting sense of loss.
Presidents should be held to the same standards. When Donald Trump was asked about the commemoration in Poland of the beginning of World War II (which he declined to attend), he said, “I send my congratulations.”
Three million Jews died in death camps as a result of the Nazi invasion. An additional million and a half non-Jewish Poles were exterminated. Many were cremated in ovens owned by for-profit private companies.
Those Poles who survived endured a living death at the direction of a dictator. They escaped the ovens, but not the misery.
When Poles stand in a moment of commemorative silence, they do not expect congratulations from the president of the United States. They expect he would be smarter than that.
‘Medicare for All’
is too risky for me
Much of the argument in favor of “Medicare for All” involves cost savings we all would enjoy. When I look at the numbers, the first thing I think of is “creative accounting.” I did tax work for over 30 years. The tax code is the poster child for creative accounting. I know it when I see it.
Unfortunately, most people will believe what they see or read in the media, so maybe a personal experience will help.
In the last six months, I sent three important business documents by Priority Mail through our Postal Service. Two out of the three did not make it. Needless to say, it caused me a lot of extra time and effort. Cross-country mail service started with the Pony Express in the 1860s. Maybe if it still existed, I would have had a better chance.
My experience was not life-threatening. How lucky do you feel if a national health system is successful 33% of the time.
‘Medicare for All’
would make Marx proud
Re: the Sept. 6 article “Now is the time for ‘Medicare for All’.”
Never have I read such a mish-mash of socialist-speak. The high point was the following: “Federal expenses would increase since all costs are borne through taxes, (‘ya think?) but there would be no additional costs, (huh?) so global payments for health care will significantly decrease ( how does this follow?) and most families will pay much less than they do now.”
My head is spinning. What the writer can’t explain in plain English is that there is no way to pay for “Medicare for All” other than to drive the country into fiscal ruin by simply printing the money to pay for it or by enacting the following policy (verbalized by a good friend this morning after reading the piece): “Everyone with over $100,000 in assets, please immediately send the excess to the federal government for redistribution.”
Comrades Marx, Lenin and Stalin would be proud.
Trump could tap energy funds for border wall
It has become clear our president lacks the ability to get Mexico to pay for his wall, as he had promised. He apparently has now changed his mind, once again, by attempting to steal the money budgeted for other promised projects. To his rescue, I have discovered an alternative source of funding he could tap into — a yuuuge ocean of money that floods into fossil fuel industry welfare. An investigation by the Oil Change International found, conservatively, that the federal government provided no less than $14.7 billion per year to the oil, gas and coal industries in direct subsidies/welfare.
Multiple budget investigators find corporate welfare is out of control in this country.
The more we learn about what is going on in the “back-alley deals” between Washington and the fossil fuel industry, the more clear the contrast between dirty energy and clean renewable energy becomes.
Is our president man enough to stand up to the oil industry to get the funds for his wall? Ask him.
Star must look at all sides of the issues
The Arizona Daily Star could not wait to place a “Breaking News” banner on its website reflecting a newly released government report “Separated migrant children suffered trauma, serious mental health problems” in detention centers. The report only cursorily touches on any trauma or health problems the children incurred from being hauled over 2,000 miles by their parents or whoever sent them unaccompanied from Central America.
There was no criticism in the report of the parents who committed child endangerment, selfishly using their children as “passports to the American dream,” knowing the children would be released quickly and, in turn, them.
Let us remember the separation of families and photos of children in “cages” started under Obama-Biden, which resulted in the infamous 20-day detention limit court ruling. These detention facilities have been overwhelmed by thousands of Central Americans flooding here. That has mostly ended now due to President Trump’s agreements with Mexico and Guatemala.
David Burford, retired ICE senior special agent
Why don’t governments use private networks?
Re: the Sept. 5 article “Local governments’ cyber vigilance has to start at the top.”
I would like to know why governments, corporations or any organization that wants security doesn’t use private networks. Twenty years ago, all of these organizations communicated via point-to-point or point-to-multipoint networks.
While I was unaware of any hacking being done to these virtually isolated channels, some federal government and financial corporations used datacryptors at every drop or point. This network would cost more than the nearly free internet. You pay a little more, but you sleep better. If you must communicate with the public on the internet, keep that isolated from your vital network.
I have been out of the business for 18 years, so I am not up to date on the latest. But I know this old stuff worked quite well. There are modern encryptors that could also be an option.
A plan for the 2020 election
With a major election for a frightfully divided nation only 14 months away, there is a real possibility that President Trump could be reelected. I propose this scenario: The Democrats nominate Republican Jeb Bush as their candidate in 2020 with the provision that Bush, in turn, chooses Kamala Harris (or one of the other progressive Democrats) as his running mate.
Given the animosity between the Bush extended family and Trump, Jeb may be willing to take this on. This is a winning combination for two reasons.
First, with Florida and Texas and a significant portion of Republican moderates on Bush’s side, it hands Trump an overwhelming defeat. And second, with a Republican and a Democrat accomplishing the feat together, it goes a long way toward healing a nation some believe to be irreparably divided.