[ad_1]
To the Editor:
Re “Biden Gambles on Trump Fear and Star Clout” (front page, Jan. 30):
I was a bit dismayed by your article about Joe Biden’s apparent campaign plan to run on basically just not being Donald Trump. Courting Taylor Swift and other celebrities is fine and all, Joe, but please don’t make yourself simply the lesser of two evils.
You won last time on social justice and the environment, and by really promising to help millions of people struggling to ride out the Covid-19 pandemic, and following through on those promises. You didn’t win on fear. Nobody wins on fear.
Yes, for most of us on the center-left, another Trump presidency sounds truly disastrous, and yes, the forces behind him are even scarier. But what you’re going to do is far more important — and appealing. If Democrats can win the House and retain the Senate, you’re a lame duck who can do whatever you want. Rock it, man.
Tell us what you’ll do to pump the economy full of green-initiative-fueled jobs and investments. Tell us we won’t lose our houses or health care. Tell us you’ll make sure our kids aren’t doomed to demoralization, deforestation and doomscrolling. Tell us that Detroit Joe matters as much as D.C. Joe.
Nobody wins on fear. Hope and change are still winners.
Tom Sturm
Easthampton, Mass.
To the Editor:
Assuming that President Biden’s main opponent will be Donald Trump, the president must not only contrast his positions with Mr. Trump’s, he must also personalize his positions.
It’s not enough to say Mr. Trump seeks to destroy Obamacare while Mr. Biden will strengthen it; he must explain how Obamacare benefits voters: It prevents insurance companies from declining coverage for those with pre-existing conditions that millions of Americans have, like obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Mr. Biden shouldn’t just talk of Mr. Trump’s election denying; he must speak directly to each voter. Why do you vote? Because you believe it’s important? Then if someone tried to disregard your precious vote, isn’t that something that should scare and anger you?
Mr. Trump and his followers tried to erase millions of legitimate votes of decent, law-abiding Americans so he could stay in power despite having lost the 2020 election. He had no respect for voters’ views.
The same personalization should be applied to the horrors caused to pregnant women by Mr. Trump’s appointment of radical right-wing political judges who were chosen specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Voters must not just hear about issues, like so much elevator music; they must feel the issues in their gut.
Alan M. Goldberg
Brooklyn
‘A Kangaroo Court’ in the House
To the Editor:
Re “House Impeaches Mayorkas, Citing Border Policies” (front page, Feb. 14):
The House impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, passed by a single vote, 214 to 213. And it was held without any evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which are the only constitutional reasons for impeachment.
Our U.S. House of Representatives held a kangaroo court. Historians will note this date because this House action, along with the pronouncements by Donald Trump about NATO, clearly started our United States on the road to isolation and authoritarianism, ruled by a cult minority, if MAGA Republicans prevail in November.
To the Editor:
Re “Defending Troops, Haley Says Golf Course Is Closest Trump Has Come to Combat” (nytimes.com, Feb. 12):
Once again, Donald Trump is showing a total lack of respect for military service. This time it’s disparaging Nikki Haley and her husband, Michael, regarding his deployed status while serving this nation as a National Guardsman.
Let’s not forget that during his first campaign Mr. Trump disparaged the Gold Star family of a U.S. Army captain, Humayun Khan, who was killed in action in Iraq in 2004.
Mr. Trump also attacked Senator John McCain, saying that he liked “people who weren’t captured.” Mr. McCain’s leadership and courage as a P.O.W. are legendary among his fellow P.O.W.’s.
Mr. Trump avoided being drafted for military service in Vietnam by claiming he had bone spurs.
Several news outlets reported that on a 2018 presidential trip to France, he decided not to visit a cemetery for American soldiers killed in World War I and called the fallen heroes “suckers” and “losers.”
In spite of Mr. Trump’s continued visible disdain for veterans and military service, it’s amazing how so many members of the military and veterans continue to support him.
Mr. Trump was clearly not wrong with all of his comments about veterans. There are clearly some “suckers” in our ranks. They just aren’t lying in the graves in France.
Richard Westmoreland
New Orleans
The writer is a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel.
Libraries Under Fire
To the Editor:
Re “Culture Wars Put Librarians on Front Lines” (front page, Feb. 5):
Libraries in America have historically been the repositories of free ideas and opinions — a resource for all Americans, regardless of political or religious persuasion. Banning materials that a particular group finds offensive is anathema to the purpose of public libraries.
And the openness has to go both ways. Concerning as it is when the right wing attempts to control library materials, the removal of materials such as Dr. Seuss books or histories that the woke left finds offensive is equally objectionable.
It is the right and responsibility of parents to monitor their children’s reading material to make sure that it is age-appropriate and aligns with their family’s values. But nobody should have the right to monitor what someone else is reading.
Access to all materials, on both sides, should be guaranteed by our public libraries. And most of all, even if their ideas vastly differ, Americans need to relearn to respect one another.
Marla Segelman
New York
The writer is a former public librarian.
To the Editor:
“Culture Wars Put Librarians on Front Lines” is actually “Religious Wars Put Librarians …”
One would think that there should be something in the Constitution that would prohibit that. Oh, wait! There is.
Sheila Loewenstern
Houston
Helping the Mentally Ill
To the Editor:
Re “Homeless, Mentally Ill and Missing Care” (Inside the Times, Feb. 12):
Under the best of circumstances — housed, treated and appropriately medicated — people with severe mental illness are challenging to care for. And even with adequate care, there is no guarantee they will achieve a level of self-knowledge and stability to lead productive, rather than destructive, lives.
To expect occasional check-ins on the homeless mentally ill to solve their problems, or even to ensure that they won’t be a danger to others, is totally unrealistic. More hospital beds won’t solve it either, as long as hospitals discharge patients after a week or two, and then, back into the street.
When deinstitutionalization in the 1960s and ’70s released mentally ill people into “the community” to be cared for, and few if any organizations existed or arose to do so, there were no longer any good solutions. Add to that the current housing crisis, and the problem has become overwhelming.
As a society we have failed the mentally ill and will continue to do so without a much more comprehensive and compassionate solution. It will cost a lot of money.
Annette Marcus
New York
[ad_2]
Source link
