Your recent editorial on the Affordable Care Act clearly shows your complete lack of empathy toward the uninsured. While it seems to be all the rage to find everything wrong with providing universal health care to all of our citizens, like all of other industrialized nations of the world do, it never seems to enter the minds of the critics that this can really work.
All we need to do is give it a chance and work to improve on the basic plan until we get it right. Critics point out problems in other nations but seem to pick and choose which they use to compare. Look at the system in France, and you will see one that has evolved into the best in the world.
Their health care costs are way below ours, but their standard of care is better and everyone benefits. Critics need to get on board. All of us can work together to make the system here the best in the world, as that is what the citizens of the greatest nation on earth deserve. It is the law of the land, passed by Congress, signed by the president and approved by the Supreme Court. Accept that, and get on with making it work.
Robert S. Weitzel
The only takeaway from our elected officials in Congress failing to perform is this: Should any of them be re-elected? Isn’t it evident that we need to turn over the help?
Shame on us if we put any of them back in office. You can make term limits happen. Let this be the start.
The straw poll vote’s in for Clemson’s design of architecture building at the corner of George and Meeting streets:
No: 51, Yes: 14
Immigration laws are clear. The Obama administration’s enforcement is weak: there are porous borders, poor deportation practices, insufficient funding and penalties. Strong enforcement would have prevented immigrant lawlessness.
Lawbreakers living in the shadows have, with forethought and planning, calculated how to break our laws and illegally enter our country.
They have, for years, retired each night and arisen each day calculating how to evade justice. They have taken American jobs and driven down wages (much sent home), all the while plundering our safety network designed for and paid for by citizens.
They consistently violate or abuse any law to obtain personal benefits. Legalize them?
Families separated by deportation are a sad, direct consequence of individual lawbreakers who knew and accepted that risk.
American civil liberties should not be defined as the “privilege” of masses to avoid the just results of their lawlessness. Cherished civil liberties should encourage respect for law, not reward lawlessness.
The House of Representatives should ignore the Senate immigration bill. That a RINO like politically posturing Sen. Lindsey Graham actively supports it is proof it is a crippling liberal Democratic Party measure. Secure the borders. Enforce existing law. The only road map should be to Mexico.
Here legally? My hope is you and yours realize the American Dream, produce healthy children of similar good character and enjoy your grandchildren in a free society. Folks like you built this nation. But here illegally? Go home!
Jim S. Brooks
East Blackstock Road
My mother and I attended the Rice Project Forum at Middleton Place. It was an educational experience. We are “Comeyahs,” both native New Yorkers whose ancestral homes are James and Edisto islands. Rice was an integral part of our culture. We ate rice every day, oblivious to the intricate steps of rice cultivation.
Of particular interest was seeing actual rice crops, and the presentations of Dr. Jessica B. Harris, the culinary historian, and El Hadj Ibrahima Fall. The enslaved Africans brought there were brilliant.
Through our participation in the Rice Project we met individuals from all over the United States with whom we shared personal stories.
We would like to thank Jane Aldrich, executive director of the Rice Project, for making it possible for us to attend and Jonathan Green for his vision, commitment and determination to create the Rice Project. We look forward to participating and supporting future Rice Project programs.
Catherme M. Lamkin
As was said of Henry James, George Will has a mind so fine that no idea can penetrate it.
Will, an exemplar of polysyllabic overkill, is not merely the stodgiest of political commentators, but a self-inflicted victim of the kind of ideological lock-think that masquerades as historical analysis.
He would have us believe that the U.S. would have been infinitely better off had the naïve, monotone coma of the Eisenhower era, however prosperous, not been held to scrutiny by the social and political groundswells of the 1960s. He surveys the cultural landscape of that time and sees naught but seeds of liberalism’s demise. What a pinched and narrow vision.
Were there excesses in the civil rights, feminist and environmental movements, in student uprisings of the time? Of course. What wrenching wave of perceptual change does not have pockets of extremism? But these do not invalidate what was necessary and useful in these movements.
To dismiss these strides forward, to cite as preferable the self-satisfied, chauvinistic dogmas of the Reagan period, is to prefer a time when we Americans chose to believe simplistic, feel-good myths about ourselves, to relinquish all skeptical faculties.
Who is the greater patriot, the conformist who blindly waves the flag and ignores injustice, or the critic who wants this country to be the best it can be, to give more than lip service to its high-minded ideals?
Citizenship is hard work. It is our responsibility to challenge authority, not acquiesce to it. It is our responsibility to see through the arrant bromides and half-truths the political classes dispense like so much candy and take them to task for it, as well as to know the difference between genuine news reportage and the theater of the absurd that has infected so much of our electronic media.
The ’60s woke us up. Some of us, at least. And the much-maligned Baby Boomers were in the vanguard. They owe no one an apology.
For all of today’s political rancor, for all the calcified partisanship and governmental ineptitude, for all the creeping cynicism, we are still better off because of what happened 40-odd years ago.
George, stick to rhapsodizing about baseball. It’s your forte. In assaying liberalism, you can’t make it to first base.
“A whole lot of people who live in Dunes West and Park West, their eyebrows are going to raise when they hear about this,” (the decision to build a 55-foot high bridge over the Wando River) he said. (Post and Courier, Oct. 22).
Therein lies the problem. The common sense rationale for constructing a bridge that will be cheaper to build and maintain (than the bascule-style they’d originally hoped for) and whose functionality with respect to providing access for high-masted vessels (which a 35-foot high bridge would not do) is completely lost on the residents of Dunes West and Park West, who would otherwise be all for it if not for NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”).
They can clamor all they want about a 55-foot high bridge costing more to construct than one 35-feet high.
But these same individuals didn’t bat a hypocritical eye at the thought of moronically spending $10 million more for an antiquated bascule bridge, simply because they thought it was more pleasing to the eye.
Perhaps if they’d chosen a dissenting argument that held water (no pun intended) and stuck with it, instead of bouncing around the spectrum for a new reason why not to build a 55-foot high bridge every time their reason du jour was proven invalid, the DOT would have given their position more consideration. Tally one up for common sense.
There is a simple solution to the parking problem at the VA Hospital. Move the entire complex to the old Navy Hospital on Rivers Avenue. There are 900 parking spaces ready to be filled.