Monday, September 25, 2017 1:00 am
A more inclusive speaker
In 2016, the Allen County GOP chose Sen. Tom Cotton as the keynote speaker for the Reagan Bean Dinner. As I said in a letter to the editor last year, “Essentially, Sen. Cotton is, as Spiro Agnew once said, 'a nattering nabob of negativism.' ” As a tea party favorite, freshman Sen. Cotton was described by The New Yorker as having “... a well-known habit of engaging in flights of destructive rhetoric. ...” I found his my-way-or-the-highway bravado to be highly offensive. We simply do not need this kind of divisiveness in Fort Wayne.
Therefore, it was a relief to see that the 2017 keynote speaker will be the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a moderate Republican who avoids the overbearing hostility so prevalent in Washington these days. Being old school, I miss the true statesmanship of Richard Lugar, but at least McCarthy is in the same ballpark.
Patricia G. Stahlhut
Bringing home argument in opposition to DACA
Sometimes I think I never should have taken a course in logic when I was in college. Ever since, I find that I mentally stand to the side of issues and look at them somewhat “Mr. Spock-like.”
With respect to DACA, I deconstructed the various arguments and put them on a micro level. I tried to examine the elements of the issue as follows:
What if you worked hard to be able to provide a nice home for your family? What if, as a family, rules were made to ensure a safe, healthy and cooperative environment in your home?
Suppose then that a family from across the street chose to break into your home and take up residence in your spare room. When confronted, suppose that family refused to leave; the justification for not leaving being that your home is better than their home.
Your home is, let's say, constructed more solidly, it is roomier, cleaner, has wi-fi and a bigger TV, and there is more and better food in your refrigerator, etc.
Suppose you stated to the family who broke in, “Yes, my home is nicer than yours and well-provisioned. Nevertheless, you broke the law by breaking into my house. My family didn't decide beforehand that it was OK for you to come here, and you need to leave. If you don't leave, I will call the police to remove you.”
What if the other family stated that because they had already been there for a certain amount of time, they had a right to stay? Would that argument convince you to allow them to remain?
What if there were a group of your neighbors in your front yard chanting, “Hey! Hey! Hey! You have to let them stay!” Would that add any moral authority to the other family's claims?
What if, because they offered to help with the chores, the other family's parents insisted that their children had a right to receive the same allowance from you that you provided your own children? Further, that they had a right to be part of the process of making rules in your home and to assist in deciding who the heads of the household should be?
What if, when you recommended that they return to their home across the street and make it better, both the family who broke in and the neighbors still chanting in your front yard completely disregarded that as a possibility?
Should you, at that point, be considered an uncaring person because you want to preserve your home for your family and perhaps those you invite into your home, as opposed to being coerced into accepting the family who broke in and took up residence without your permission; and perhaps allowing others into your home who are invited by the family that broke in?
Should others be allowed to judge your actions if they were not subjected to the same set of circumstances?
Finally, I find myself wondering if I am alone in pondering this issue from a logical perspective as opposed to an emotional one.
Anthony W. Gensic
Let Kim have his bomb
OK. North Korea has the bomb. I think the rest of the bomb folks should acknowledge it, and say to North Korea: OK, you can sit at the bomb table now, but you must act responsibly now that you're here. We can pull the sanctions, they didn't work, and use that money to help where help is needed for the poor, ill, etc.
To paraphrase I believe it was Jeb Bush, you cannot make friends with someone you're yelling at across the street. It is imperative for the safety of the world that the bomb folks get along. They don't have to agree on everything, but they have to agree they all have the bomb and act responsibly.
Rubble on rubble doesn't make sense.