Letters to the editor | VailDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Letters to the editor

Greg Douras

Mr. Cacioppo, I think you make an important distinction in your commentary, “Liberals oppose Constitution.” Republicans and Democrats do not divide neatly along the liberal-conservative line. However, you fail to prove your point, which is that liberals are capricious and ineffective in their interpretation of the Constitution. Your analysis is only a one-sided attack on a supposed liberal-moderate menace. You ought to do more work than simply attack your opponents – a house with one wall cannot stand for long.During your discussion of abortion, you imply that a heartbeat indicates human life, but that is insufficient for declaring a fetus a person. Can a comatose human really participate in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Can a fetus without brain states do the same? In paragraph 10 you claim, “Congress has the power over the Supreme Court,” and in paragraph 20 you claim, “The Supreme Court’s actions … have been a blatant usurpation of raw power.” You make two contrary claims here. Additionally, according to the Federalist Papers No. 78 and Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional legislation, which refutes your claim in paragraph 10. Lastly, you support the Patriot Act and claim, “Jail is only to be a punishment after conviction of a crime, not during prosecution.” You also claim that liberal police officers invent probable causes because they are “curious.” How do these claims fall outside the way in which the U.S. government uses the Patriot Act, which you support? Greg Douras Edwards What if?The online poll in the Vail Daily listed the war in Iraq and domestic affairs as the two most important issues in 2006. Since the Daily is running the articles on illegal immigration in Eagle County and elsewhere, I assume the domestic affairs have a lot to do with immigration issues.What I am about to pontificate upon is not necessarily my own opinion, but rather thoughts about “what if.”What if we didn’t send thousands of American troops out looking for weapons of mass destruction that seem to have eluded us? What if instead we had kept the troops home? Those millions of dollars a day that are spent on spreading democracy to a part of the world that for centuries has been in turmoil could have been used elsewhere.Where, you say? How about if the millions that were spent and are continuing to be spent in Iraq were used to get Mexico on its feet? The creation of more and better jobs south of the border might just mean less need for the Minutemen to patrol our borders, less impact on our medical and welfare systems, schools, etc. Gosh, it just might be that we actually save money by spending money south of the border. When you think about it in simplistic terms, you might consider that the money used in Iraq and that is now gone (with thousands of American lives) could have been used to help solve our domestic-border issues. Perish the thought that perhaps that money already spent could have been used to help solve our poverty issues. The above thoughts are only those, thoughts. No one in the United States is going to solve the centuries of traditions, strife and beliefs of Iraq, no matter how great of a student of history they may consider themselves.One can argue all they wish, and cite reason upon reason as to why our country does what it does. But what if instead of trying to solve all of Iraq’s issues, we help solve the poverty-job issues in Mexico and in America? Do we become less of a target for terrorists when we are helping those south of the border and at home thus helping ourselves and preserving American lives?If one wants to argue the “big picture” in the world and America’s role in it, they had better be talking Korea, China and the other growing nations.I think that if you want to save American lives, jobs and the economy, the money (already spent by our government) might just have been better spent south of the border.Gerry SandbergGypsumA classic liberal”Do As I Say, (Not As I Do),” by Peter Schweizer, is a book about profiles in liberal hypocrisy. His liberals are 11 of the most prominent: Norm Chomsky, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Gloria Steinem and Cornel West. Schweizer employs a small army of devoted researchers familiar with investigation of public rip cords about individuals’ finances and personal holdings. As a seven-year fellow of the Hoover Institute, Schweizer he has considerable student resources for his research.In the last several years, more of the secret side of Ralph Nader has become public record:”As the spartan of the liberal left, his frugality is legendary. When he left the Army in 1958, He bought 12 pairs of shoes and four dozen socks at the PX. He was still wearing them three decades later.””Ralph Nader has made a lack of interest in material things one of the defining principles of his life. When it comes to issues like pollution, inequality, corporate power, even automobile safety, he sees the source of these great evils as the avarice of corporations and an over-consumptive America.””For more than 40 years, he has warned that we are ‘falling into corporatist control’ and promoting domination by a pro-corporate oligarchy.””Indeed, despite his spartan lifestyle, Ralph Nader is a wealthy man. But little is known about his appetite for corporate investment because he is one of the most secretive political figures in recent American history. This is especially ironic insofar as one of Nader’s most consistent messages has been the need for greater openness in business and politics alike.” “Information he declares is the currency of democracy and denial must always be suspect.””Nader has famously and publicly over the years stuck to the story that he owns no home but lives his life of activism in a small apartment in northwest Washington, D.C. But his friends and coworkers know better. Back in the 1970s, a neighbor in an exclusive neighbor hood spotted Nader coming and going from an expensive home worth approximately $2 million on Bancroft Place. A check of real estate records reveals that the home was not in Nader’s name but that of his unemployed brother, Shafeek. (His brother claimed that he was an education consultant, but he kept an unlisted number.)”Later, ownership was transferred to Nader’s sister, Claire, who works with him on his various projects. When asked about the house by Maxine Cheshire of the Washington Post, Nader admitted he did indeed use the house for personal reasons. ‘Then he went on to talk about the great tax breaks that came from owning the home,’ said Cheshire. ‘He talked about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He’s excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean I did realize that that’s the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.””This is a bit surprising coming from a man who thinks the biggest problem in America is corporate greed, and the refusal of the rich to pay their share. ‘Get the rich off welfare,’ he has said. ‘Make them pay their taxes.'” There are 13 more pages on Nader’s hypocrisy.Steve ZorichakVailVail, Colorado


Support Local Journalism


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User