To the editor:
Last week’s dog attack that left a 4-month-old infant dead was a tragedy. I can only pray for the family.
The Review-Journal had the opportunity to do what its television counterparts did: rail against the American pit bull terrier. Once again, I watched as reporters demonized this breed.
But on Saturday morning, an interesting thing occurred — the Review-Journal actually reported the facts and published a secondary article that gave some facts about the breed (“Exercise caution with dogs, kids together, vets say”). While some self-made “experts” will dispute what was reported, it was at least a chance to air what many owners of pit bulls (myself included) have been saying for years: This breed is no more or less dangerous around children than any other.
As a father of a 21/2 year old, I am very aware that my dog should not be left alone with him. No matter how gentle she is with him, she is still an animal. My face was mauled by a Pekingese when I was an infant, yet I do not call for the banning or eradication of that breed.
I agree with the doctor who stated that those who train dogs to be aggressive should be jailed. Let’s leave the dogs alone and go after the root cause of the problem: the idiots who seek to turn these wonderful animals into time bombs.
Tax, tax, tax
To the editor:
Your Sept. 12 editorial “Obama shifts gears on tax plan,” was excellent. I especially liked your Goldilocks analogy on how liberals want the tax structure to cut as deep as possible without collapsing the economy.
But if you read Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism” you will find that wrecking our entrepreneurial economic system is exactly the goal of the “far left,” the “progressives” and the “liberals” (euphemisms for socialists). Their aim is to cripple legal avenues to individual wealth and eventually make the middle class totally dependent upon the government.
They’ll start with medical care, then move to discounted gasoline (a la Venezuela), and eventually to a food stamp card and free cable TV for everybody. Then they’ll expand the Section 8 program to subsidize the rent and house payments of the middle class.
Naturally, the government will have to collect more money from the “rich.” But the definition of “rich” will have to be adjusted to include the two-income households that include postal workers, teachers, firefighters and police — unless, for political expediency, they are exempted.
The other truth
To the editor:
It was with delight that I read Erin Neff’s Tuesday column (“A bridge to the truth”) and discovered that she is devoted to the “truth,” which is something difficult to find anywhere these days.
She has repeatedly told us the “truth” about the McCain-Palin presidential ticket, but has had little truth to offer on Obama-Biden, other than to note how much more titillating the Democrats’ convention in Denver was when compared with the boring Republican version in Minnesota.
As one who is a registered independent and is highly skeptical of whether anyone’s vote really counts for anything anymore, and one who has contributed $50 to both presidential campaigns, I would appreciate it if Ms. Neff could give us a little truth about Sen. Barack Obama.
I entered this election cycle with an open mind and, in the beginning, believed we had running for president two highly unqualified candidates — one an old coot and the other a silver-tongued devil. I liked neither and was prepared not to vote, but decided anyway to take a long look at these gentlemen.
It became obvious that the flawed old coot has a long list of accomplishments — both personal and political — and that the flawed, silver-tongued devil is just that, one who can talk a good game but who has not one single major accomplishment on his resume, other than to win the confidence of the forever-corrupt Chicago political machine and have those folks clear the decks for him — in return for what?
I would like for Ms. Neff to write a column or two on the “truth” about Sen. Obama — and most of all, give us one single thing that qualifies him to be president. To this point in time, she has told us repeatedly that McCain-Palin is wrong, but has never told us why Obama-Biden is right.
I need for someone to tell me why Sen. Obama should be president. Don’t tell me why I should vote against Sen. John McCain. For openers, let’s discuss Sen. Obama’s extreme pro-abortion position, which supports partial-birth abortion, and tell us why he voted against legislation that would require doctors to offer medical attention and aid to aborted babies born alive. Or maybe that is too heavy a dose of the truth?
In Ms. Neff’s world, it certainly is her right to tell the truth on one side and ignore the truth on the other side. But it certainly is not right, and it makes her sound like a paid employee of the Democratic Party.