Rush To Judgment
Predictably, The Sun's stable of liberal columnists have again attacked Rush Limbaugh, this time for his move to that other Baltimore liberal bastion, WBAL radio.
Michael Olesker's column accuses Limbaugh of "playing fast and loose with the facts." But . . . one wonders where Olesker got his "facts" to play with.
Yes, Limbaugh openly admitted to perhaps twice smoking pot, decades ago, but "savages Clinton" only for his own waffling about using it. Limbaugh also admits to only becoming politically involved in the last decade, so he naturally would have "rarely bother[ed] to vote." Limbaugh's opposition to abortion is quite articulated; he goes at length to describe how he "would never tell a woman what to do" or blockade a building to prove his point. It follows that he (or even Dan Quayle, for that matter), wouldn't actually force an adult family member to not have an abortion. The term "feminazi," by the way, is reserved by Rush only for the "couple dozen" feminists who promote abortion in all circumstances.
Olesker is simply ignorant or lying when he describes Limbaugh as "bullying" or "shouting" at listeners. While this is true of some hosts, it's hardly true of Limbaugh. He is normally polite and generous to all reasonable callers. Compared to the threats, tirades, distortions and crass stereotyping by some of The Sun's more desperate writers and cartoonists, Rush is indeed "a harmless little fuzzball."
Olesker and his peers could only hope to have the audience or influence that Limbaugh has earned. Talk radio means real-time feedback and challenges from the audience -- not neat, one-sided, smug little editorials safely composed and delivered from home or office. . . . With the advent of Rush, "hard-hitting commentary" and "hip and irreverent satire" are no longer just lefty propositions. Perhaps Rush's critics at The Sun are really reacting to the sight of their own sacred cows being finally ground into burgers.
L. Smart III
There is legislation being drafted by Councilwomen Theresa Pierno and Susan Heselton that would require a community input meeting as part of the development review and approval process. This legislation addresses the concerns of many citizens in Harford County who feel that the current administrative process is not adequate to address their concerns. More often than not, they learn about a development when the construction equipment starts grading the lot. The proposed legislation does not stop development of an area. It is a vehicle whereby legitimate community concerns must be addressed before the development approval process may proceed.
The Community Coalition of Harford County, which is composed of individuals and community groups, looked at this alternative to the present system. At the September general membership meeting, the members unanimously endorsed the intent of the council-proposed community input bill.
We also urge all individuals and community groups to investigate this progressive legislation by contacting councilwomen Pierno or Heselton at 638-3343. Be alert, since it will be introduced by the Oct. 19 council session and public hearings will be scheduled for November.
The writer is president of the Community Coalition of Harford County.
President Clinton has released a National Health Care proposal and I have to admit I am not impressed. As usual, the government has good intentions, but how can a government that has a larger than $4 trillion debt expect to run a national health care system? If the government cannot even balance its own budget, how can it expect to regulate socialized medical care?
Two things that I have learned . . . are that nothing comes easy and (after reading the fine print) nothing comes free. So what makes this health care system so special since it is obviously not free?
Employers will be expected to pay 80 percent and employees will be expected to pay 20 percent for health care coverage. What about the unemployed? They get everything free. Where is the money coming from to cover their health programs? Tax revenues from alcohol and tobacco. Great, we are relying on the success of the alcohol and tobacco industries to fund health care. Is there something wrong with that message?
What is going to happen to the quality of the doctors? In a non-competitive environment, where is the drive to be the best ++ and to be better than fellow colleagues? The deciding role of the consumer is reduced to nothing in a system that allows no choice. Canada's system has been raved about in local newspapers. In their system, patients have to be placed on a waiting list for major surgeries. People will have to be placed on waiting lists to see their doctor. We will no longer have the luxury of driving to a local hospital. . . .
Yes, we need to reform health care in our country. We have the best health care but yet we have 37 million people who are not covered by insurance. Does Clinton have the answer? He has taken a step in the right direction, but he has a long way to go. There is too much lacking with his system. Did you know that Clinton's plan does not include dental care? Did you also know that because Clinton is trying to cut away extra expenses that many people will lose their jobs and several smaller hospitals will not be able to function anymore?
There are many things that have to be considered before we jump into a socialized health care system. As usual the government has a wonderful idea but will this idea be able to be transformed into a reality? It is the duty of every citizen to be educated on the effects, positive and negative, this system would have on his/her lives. Please let your representatives know your views and become involved because this will be my future and my children's lives.
Darlene J. Papier