Dear Editor,
It’s scary. Deja Bush all over again? As we enter the final week
of this two-year election run-up, anti-science ideologues reared
their heads in smug, sneering delight. Sarah Palin, fundamental
creationist and mother of a Down’s Syndrome child, asserted support
of George W. Bush’s anti-intellectualism in her first policy speech
last week.
Sarah Palin on science … Deja Bush all over again
Dear Editor,
It’s scary. Deja Bush all over again? As we enter the final week of this two-year election run-up, anti-science ideologues reared their heads in smug, sneering delight. Sarah Palin, fundamental creationist and mother of a Down’s Syndrome child, asserted support of George W. Bush’s anti-intellectualism in her first policy speech last week.
The very pork barrel earmarks she was publicly mocking (“… these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good … I kid you not.”), regarding Drosophila fruit fly research, helped discover a neurological protein with implications for autistic children. Who was her audience in her coming out speech? Parents of autistic children. She was totally clueless.
And John McCain? Railing on pork barrel earmarks attributed to Sen. Obama, McCain mocked his opponent’s attempt in obtaining a new “overhead projector for a Chicago planetarium.” What he didn’t know was that it was not your typical $200 classroom overhead projector, but rather a $3 million Zeiss lens, 2-ton, 18-motor planetarium projector to replace the non-serviceable 40-year old projector at the Adler Planetarium. It was not funded, and McCain was totally clueless.
Neither Palin nor McCain knew anything about what they spoke. Does this sound eerily familiar? Accusing their opponent of obtaining wasteful earmarks is as transparent as the anti-science vacuum between their auditory canals.
Can we intellectually and scientifically afford four more years of the same?
Dale Morejón, Gilroy
Hoping for the common good in true Catholic tradition
Dear Editor,
In this election season, references to the common good have papered the public square. In fact, both presidential candidates have infused their speeches with “common good” language. It’s easy to see why this often misunderstood concept has become a “sound bite,” given the many threats to the common good we face.
Relying on the politics of division has accompanied an increasing gap between rich and poor, a terrible economic crisis, and has offered no solution to the millions of people who go without health care coverage. But in the Catholic social tradition, the notion of the common good has specific demands and transcends partisanship.
The government’s role is to serve the common good – not just the interests of a select few. That requires public policies that build a just and stable economy, and that meet basic human needs. America is hurting. I hope that that WHOEVER ends up occupying the oval office will help us move beyond the politics of division and will turn those campaign sound bites into effective policies that build a true culture of the common good.
Mary Silva, Gilroy
‘Ugliest campaign ever targeting Obama?’ Sorry, not even close
Dear Editor,
To have one of your columnists, who is an editorial board member, call Barack Obama the “target of one of the longest primary campaigns and ugliest general election campaign in history” is very misleading at the very least. There have been past candidates that have campaigned for many years, some for as long as 10 or 11 years.
One former president campaigned for almost nine years for the job, JFK actively campaigned for six years before getting the nod. Most have campaigned for four or five years. A two-year campaign for Obama is in fact one of the shortest presidential campaigns. As for the ugliest general election campaign, this one would have trouble making it anywhere on the ugly list.
Candidates of the past have been involved in duels to the death, fist fights, and name calling that would not even be printable today. An assassination attempt left one candidate paralyzed for life (George Wallace). Editorials that were so slanderous they are almost unreadable today. Lincoln was made fun of because of his looks and was insulted and assaulted at campaign rallies. Victoria Woodhull was a woman candidate from the Equal Rights Party; she was dubbed as being “Mrs. Satan”and she was jailed. A New York candidate – “The Buffalo Hangman” – became president in spite of being an executioner. It was also discovered that he had a secret “love child” and was paying child support (Grover Cleveland). One candidate saw a UFO; “… a light beckoning me to run in the California primary.” (Jimmy Carter).
The large size of one candidate was more than enough to make fun of a future president (William Howard Taft). The dirty tricks of 1972 left a presidential candidate (Edmund Muskie) crying in the snow. “His Fraudulency” is a term attached to five or six presidents campaigning for a new term.
Current campaigns are mild compared to those of the past. Even with all of those “most unfit to be president”, “drunkard”, “swearing, whiskey drinking, fighting colonel”, “shameful”, “demon”, “baboon”, “traitor”, “vote buying”, “idiot” – we still elect them. Forget about those ink droplets on paper we see as words, they are merely one person’s opinion. Sometimes not a very informed one at that.
This presidential campaign is far from the worst America has endured. It resembles one of the mildest of the 55 presidential campaigns our country has held. America will survive, the country will stay intact and we will hold a presidential campaign again in four years. In all likelihood the 2012 presidential will also be called the “ugliest in history” by someone that does not know history.
Leonard Hale, Gilroy
Flashy oratory and media pundits aren’t the answer for solid votes
Dear Editor,
I sometimes wonder if I am the only person who feels that the media has become our voice. It seems that the election has been decided by most large newspapers and television news stations and their constant referral to surveys. They are out in force on Election Day to let us know how people voted. True, it is after people have cast their vote, but the reporters begin to let you know what the percentages are and how the election will turn out.
After each debate, the media has been out in force to let us know how the candidate did, what they said and then decide who won.
Who exactly are these people? They are just like you and me, but in order for them to sell their product and be the first one to get the scoop, they feel they must “let the American people know.”
I would hope that we have enough intelligence to listen and draw our own conclusions without the reporters’ biases.
We are in danger in this country of losing our true voice because we are bombarded every time we open a paper or turn on the television with “their voice” and how they feel it is going.
I used to believe that the news would cover an event and then report what happened, not critique it and analyze and give us their opinion. I believe the editorial page is where they can share their thoughts.
My Dad and Mom immigrated to this country in 1920 and were able to survive the depression. They raised six children and became citizens. Dad knew much more about the constitution and government than I did. They loved this country and the opportunities it gave to them. Years ago, my Dad questioned me when I was listening to a debate with “Do you believe everything you read and hear? It’s a bunch of bull.” I challenged him then, but now I understand what he was talking about.
Each presidential candidate is making promises to lead us to a brighter future, but neither one has had the courage to say that all of us will have to make sacrifices to accomplish what they plan. I hope that our next President will be honest with the people. Just because someone is able to be eloquent does not make him a great leader. Look at the records, listen to what they are proposing. Our current situation will not get better overnight and whoever wins this election will be under great stress and scrutiny. What these candidates need is courage and the ability to work with the congress and world leaders and the strength of the American people to stand with them.
We must use our own voice as we vote for the person we feel will best lead this country and not be swayed by the surveys and rhetoric we hear each day.
Roxie Thomas, Gilroy
Don’t forget very important library measure on bottom of the ballot
Dear Editor,
The top and the bottom. Our nation and our town. Think global and act local. Tuesday, Nov. 4 is the time to remember each of these three phrases. We’ve all read that this election will generate record turnouts. Many people are just interested in the top of the ballot, voting for our next president. But I urge everyone to go to the bottom of the ballot to find Measure F and vote Yes to build a larger, earthquake-safe library.
As to the second phrase, our nation and our town. Media attention has focused on the national candidates and issues. But here in Gilroy, we can make decisions that will have an impact. During tough economic times, statistics show that library usage increases as families take advantage of the library’s resources and job search tools. Voting Yes on Measure F to build a new library helps stimulate both our economy and our property values.
The last phrase, think global and act local, is our reminder that while we need to understand worldwide issues, our library’s Measure F will generate jobs here. Every dime is legally required to stay in Gilroy to benefit our community. Your vote is very important.
Matilda Butler, Gilroy
