To the editor:
Nancy Feldman Maheras’ upside-down interpretation of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” tale exposing the dysfunctional nature of the failed socialist collective deserves a second look (Wednesday letter). She identifies the pigs as “corrupt power figures” such as insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. That role in the book is reserved for Mr. Jones, who owned Manor Farm. The pigs, led by Napoleon, are actually a representation of the social elite who, in the end, exempt themselves from all of the Seven Commandments.
Ms. Maheras would attribute the role of the sheep to taxpaying, bill-paying citizens, who already take care of themselves in the long-held American tradition of personal responsibility, something that is going by the wayside faster than a ripe banana in summertime. They only stand to defend their way of life. She could not be more wrong, and if Mr. Orwell were to see this, he would turn over in his grave.
The collective sheep today are running around chanting things like “every citizen’s chance for affordable, quality, health care” in blind support of the social elite, who only want control. The truth of the lie can be found in how the pigs see their own personal health care, “free for life, personal to themselves.”
Four legs good, two legs better!
To the editor:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary during times such as these for people to exercise their constitutional and God-given rights to peaceably assemble, and petition the government — our elected officials — for a redress of grievances. This right is guaranteed to every U.S. citizen by the First Amendment. Isn’t this what a public town hall meeting is supposed to be all about?
It has nothing to do with the sheep imagined by George Orwell, as suggested by one Nancy Feldman Maheras in a Wednesday letter to the editor. Might I suggest that those who prefer to be intimidated by the words coming from the White House and our very own Sen. Harry Reid, who apparently regards our Constitution and the aforementioned First Amendment as a convenient joke, would indeed be the real sheep?
Since Jan. 20, the budget deficit has tripled to $3.8 trillion. Some 3.2 million jobs have been lost nationwide, unemployment is at least at 10.5 percent and headed quickly toward 15 percent as small businesses are folding and shopping centers are fast becoming ghost towns. The Democrat Party is trying to ram through a health care program that we can’t afford, do not have the money for, and they want to divert billions already allocated to Medicare to pay for the initial start-up cost.
Small wonder that senior citizens who have worked hard and paid their taxes all of their lives are alarmed.
We, as alarmed citizens, have a right to peaceably assemble and petition our government for a redress of grievances! It is only in countries with socialist governments that this is not a basic human right.
To the editor:
I am confused. Perhaps you can help me. The main reason people haven’t replaced their “clunkers” is that they can’t afford car payments.
So along comes the government with down-payment money. So the consumer buys a new car. And what do they get along with the car?
Here’s where my confusion starts. If they can’t make the payments, who will have to pick them up? Any guesses?
Can you say Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? What will we call this new boondoggle? Foolish us?
To the editor:
Simple calculations using the government’s own statistics show that buying a vehicle that gets 25 mpg while crushing your former 15 mpg vehicle yields savings of about 36 tons of CO2 over 10 years.
However, if one considers the amount of energy required to produce and transport the new car to the buyer, approximately five years must pass before there are any real CO2 savings. And the waste of resources that occurs when we outlaw the recycling of most of the old vehicle other than as shredded scrap is appalling.
It seems that this administration is no more adept at scientific analysis than the previous one. It is the same old “do something quickly with a lot of fanfare and score political points” rather than find a genuine solution to a problem.
It seems much more intelligent to keep the old vehicle on the road till the end of its useful life a few years from now, and replace it in the future with an even more efficient vehicle.