Letters to the Editor: Frustrated Viewer Resorts to Cable
Frustrated Viewer Resorts to Cable
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Sunah Cochran's letter, "Volunteer Initiative Keeps Senior Connected," found a welcome reader here. As a child of the Depression, this writer has never looked for help from Big Brother. Early last year, in an effort to curtail the constantly rising expenses of cable television, I terminated this service and had an antenna attached to my home.
On doomsday, June 11, I was waiting for at least the same viewing of several channels with the duly installed converter boxes. What I see now is nothing. I am waving the white flag, removing the antenna, and using cable television service. And I fully expect to see the cost rising regularly.
No one should be surprised to find that the only ones to benefit from the changes are the cablevision companies. Nell O'Brien. Chase City.
Alzheimer's Striking Younger Adults
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Nearly a half-million Americans below the age of 65 battle young onset Alzheimer's disease. I was disturbed to learn that Chief Judge Karen Williams of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is now among those numbers.
Williams is retiring at the relatively young age of 57. She foresees the day that she may no longer be able to function effectively in her job. Individuals with Alzheimer's find it extremely difficult to tackle even the most routine and mundane of job tasks.
Unfortunately, the judge's situation is not unique. A growing number of younger adults are diagnosed with Alzheimer's -- an incurable disease. Some are only in their 40s. That's alarming.
More than 5 million Americans live with Alzheimer's. About 26,000 of them are in the Greater Richmond area.
The Alzheimer's Association, a non-profit charity, provides a wealth of resources to assist those facing this unpredictable disease. We offer round-the-clock information and assistance. Also, hundreds of caregivers participate in our support groups, which meet monthly throughout the area.
There is no reason for anyone to face this disease alone. We are there to help.
Sherry Peterson.
Richmond.
Everything About Conservatism Is Wrong
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Your apology for Massive Resistance, "Our Past," was eloquent but incomplete. You trace its lineage only as far as Jim Crow. What philosophy gave birth to Jim Crow and slavery itself? It was conservatism.
Conservatism's goal is to maintain -- to conserve -- the status of an elite, mostly wealthy class. Its primary method is to pit other classes against one another, using deception to portray one or more as dangerous. Conservatism is selfishness disguised as a noble principle. It's all about "me" instead of "we." This is the creed that spawned slavery, Jim Crow, and Massive Resistance, and it's the same line of thought proudly sold by Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and Ross Mackenzie. It's no coincidence that the former slave states remain today the most conservative.
Your essay speaks of "the attitudes informing" Jim Crow. Those conservative attitudes are still very much alive, and they appear daily on your editorial pages and elsewhere. Those same attitudes inform current conservative positions on health care, the environment, taxation of wealth, and government in general. And they are just as wrong as they were on race.
Conservatives were on the wrong side of the biggest issue in American history. You would think that would cause them to reconsider their doctrine. But even in the light of New Testament equality, they still preach Old Testament brimstone. Conservatives must know they are pushing a discredited dogma, so one must ask whether their apologies on race are really sincere. Your past is America's past, but, unrepentant, you continue to kindle its sparks.
William R. Melton.
Richmond.
Hasn't D.C. Learned Haste Makes Waste?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Even though I feel like part of a small group of voices crying out in the wilderness, I write because the tiny, fragile bird of hope still clings to life.
Once more we see that whenever either political party controls everything, it loses any ability to control itself.
We now see the Democrats running amok, scurrying in every direction at once and doing everything right now.
When one party is in total control, its social and political agendas seem to preclude any hint of common sense or self-discipline.
At a time when we see the national debt increasing explosively, if not exponentially, I would suggest to the president and Congress that haste really does make waste.
Under the past president, we rushed to a war that many people now think was a mistake. Did we learn nothing about taking a little more time to think before acting?
Let's not try to swallow a whole watermelon with one bite. No matter how well-intentioned, it just makes no sense.
Herman Birdsong.
Powhatan.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Ok. Here’s a case history via google:
http://www.landmarkcases.org/landmarkframe_necessary.html
It actually seems to imply that congress, acting as an elected federal body, has broad discretionary abilities to legislate.
Maybe that’s not the case; a state governor could bring this complaint on your behalf and I think it’s important that you do this.
It is not a moot point, and indeed congress has been sucessfully slapped down in the past. You appear to gloss over the important phrase = “foregoing”. There is very little problem reading the intent into that word.
But as long as sheeple exist, then congress will get away with it. This time they may not as several governors have already said they will challenge on the 10th amendment.
I have no standing to take the issue to court (another misunderstanding on your part), but states do. And SCOTUS has not been rubber stamping congress for 200 years. The states just forgot what their rights were and have not challenged. SCOTUS cant do anything unless a case is brought to them.
GodFather,
It’s a moot point:
“The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.“
-Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18
For 200+ years, the Supreme Court has supported an interpretation of expansive congressional powers within the limits of the constitution, argued on a case by case basis (That’s right, you can google it). I’m not repeating anything that hasn’t been laid out in historical terms by the democracy (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and the Federalist Papers, the courts and relevant legal precedent for two hundreds years; there’s a long list of realities).
If you want to take the issue to court and challenge the broader interpretation of congressional powers, great, I’ll cede to your point, but “Please dont quote the constitution until you read it and actually understand it.“, because you’re arguing a textual fiction.
“Posted by ( R ) on July 30, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The constitution gives congress discretionary powers to legislate anything that is necessary and proper. But no, healthcare is not explicitly mentioned.“
No it does not. You apparently do not know the constitution at all. Your ignorance is showing. I would direct you to amendment 10.
And then to “justify” the liberal arrogance, the interstate commerce clause.
Please dont quote the constitution until you read it and actually understand it.
Yet the United States has followed a “government spending focused model” for 70+ years of middle class “prosperity”.
Private sector consumer goods, and especially commodity markets, can not be isolated from the relationship they have with government spending; that’s an incomplete model of growth,
i.e., Removing state economic supports would shift costs to the private sector and, “Driving up costs on the private sector does not create private sector jobs and it does not create prosperity.“
Actually, private sector consumption provides a more reliable model for growth and prosperity than a government spending focused model. Certainly certain government initiatives have become major growth drivers, but, not without the significant contributions of the private sector. Driving up costs on the private sector does not create private sector jobs and it does not create prosperity.
I hear a lot about growth in your discussion, but, little in the way of actual prosperity. I’m looking for prosperity, not just survival.
Maybe. But Reagan did ask for a larger defense budget (Star Wars, et al). Government sponsored research in the 1970’s, 80’s, 90’s, 00’s, has led to the development of technologies that would have otherwise been cost-prohibitive. Case in point, micro-processing, 3G, the internet- billion dollar industries have been built around what were initially government investments in defense and university research.
Even Das Kapitol points out that capitalism can be an efficient model for growth, but if investment isn’t rationally directed by self-interest, the stability that capital markets enjoy dissipates, severely. State spending creates stability and reliable growth for private investment.
R - Ronald Reagan got his cut taxes, but, the congress actually increased spending - something Reagan did not agree to. There’s a big disconnect there. Tax cuts plus government spending reductions would have further increased the prosperity of the 1980s.
Re: Pinochet and Friedman
Since the violence was perpetrated against trade workers, unionists, advocates of democracy, and the peasantry, I would say that there is a connection to the economic policies.
But again market policies don’t have the distinction of creating freedom in every situation. The wisdom lies in personal self-interest, and self-interests do not always translate into collective interests.
Going back a page to our previous discourse:
Theoretical terms aside, any centralized state will necessarily have an effect on the economy. Capitalism at scale has never existed in a vacuum where it has been separate from state support. Every financially successful and exportable market in the United States (aerospace, micro-technology, defense, agri-business, finance, education, research) has been developed alongside government subsidies, protection, and support initiatives. It’s simply unfounded that a capital market can or should exist without some guidance from the greater democracy. This doesn’t imply micromanagement, but as a point of national security and sovereignty, it does imply that we have a collective interest in the effects of capital markets, or lack thereof.
Briefly, to answer another question, the war economy played no small part in elevating the productive power of the United States, elevating our ability to maintain troops on every continent, create embassies in virtually every capital city, and assert trade dominance throughout the world, capability and advantage with peripheral markets and stimulus effect.
Even to this day the US defense budget has grown annually since the Keynesian Era; disregarding the close of the Cold War, defense spending increased.
Whereas Ronald Reagan cut the tax rate in his term, he did so while increasing government and defense spending to previously unreached levels, so it would be hard to ignore the effect of state generated economic outputs versus the drag of taxes.
So I would posit that capitalism does not significantly exist in reality, but is a theoretical construct.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement