Kudos to letters on electoral college, progressives
Other than the party loyalists that are obligated to continually post verbatim their party’s spin, this newspaper has an excellent base of well-educated points of view expressed on its Op-Ed page. After reading two such letters that are addressed in my as yet unpublished and still being written book, I felt the need to reply to both.
Diane F. Henkel’s letter (“Electoral college ensures candidates care about all states,” Feb. 11) concerning the electoral college was spot on. However, there are some issues other than drawing attention to smaller states. The first is once the electorate has spoken, the person chosen to cast the vote must be compelled to exercise that vote. I don’t care how much the voter hates Trump, his privilege to cast the ballot does not allow him to change the will of the people. We now know at least one such person did exactly that in the past election. The other point is that states with 10 or more electoral votes are not small and represent a larger dichotomy of voters. They should be forced to apportion their votes equally to match the ballot. No more winner take all. This electoral college was not designed to “game the system,” a term Trump has used to explain away his past New York wrongdoings. Apportioning electoral votes will make smaller states’ votes that much more important.
The other letter was from Ronnie Graham (“Progressive wasn’t always a ‘four-letter word,'” Feb. 11), who is from my era, though my memory has lost my teacher’s name. What he was taught in school brought back memories of the same teachings. Capitalism is not the problem, it is the solution. Greed is the problem. Capitalists get so wrapped up in their own success that some (not all) of them get greedy. I might point out that the counterpoint unions have fallen prey to the same greed. Socialism is not the answer and though not all progressives are socialists, the current bunch running in the Democrat party are one-upping each other with new socialism solutions. The answer is not socialist programs but tighter restraints on the greed which the current administration is unfortunately removing instead of tightening. In my book, as in my prior columns, I take offense at progressive Van Jones socialist idea of two years of free college, yet I applaud his prison reform efforts. The first is socialism, the latter is progressive.
Political expediency determines party’s beliefs
I find it ironic that circumstances are such that a Republican, Donald Trump, speaks for the masses, while a socialist, Bernie Sanders, speaks for the college elite.
Democrats are fretting about the impact having Bernie Sanders at the top of the ticket will have on vulnerable congressional seats. From a purely political perspective, I guess that’s a legitimate concern, but shouldn’t the greater concern be the impact electing a socialist president will have on the country?
My sense is, if Democrats believed they could win the presidency, take the Senate, and keep the House, they’d be just fine with a socialist at the top of the ticket. What does that say about the Democratic Party?
Thankful for anonymous generosity
I am writing to you because I want to thank some very generous people and have no Idea how to reach them. In fact, I don't even know who they are.
After my husband finished three day sessions of chemotherapy, beginning in November, he wound up in the hospital for five days due to blood issues and bronchitis. As he was finally feeling decent, we decided to go to our favorite pizzeria, Ledo’s, in Westminster [on Feb. 16].
When we finished eating, we asked for our check. Our lovely waitress said, “your bill has been paid.” I told her that we were midwest transplants and really didn’t know many people from the area. I thought they may have thought we were someone else. She said, “No, they didn’t know who you were, but it was something they wanted to do.'”
We really would love to thank them from the bottom of our hearts, but have no idea how.