What has happened to the Republican Party?
I come from the GOP of the 1940s to 1960s, when the "white-collar" workers, like my dad, were Republicans, and the "blue-collar" workers were Democrats. Honesty, hard work, frugality, faith, and decency defined our middle-class family.
What have we come to that a former disc jockey and a bartender with big mouths are representing the party? Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, while neither journalists nor college graduates, inflame and incite their audiences. Rote repetition seems to be needed to teach their audience to parrot their lines.
Using childish words, such a "El-Rush-bo," "Dingy Harry," and "wacko," Mr. Limbaugh's followers even obligingly call themselves "ditto-heads," seemingly proud to reveal they cannot think for themselves. When Mr. Limbaugh directed his flock to change their party affiliation to vote for Hillary Clinton, they would report in to their "Operation Chaos" commander that they'd dutifully done just that.
Like Ronald Reagan, whom they constantly exemplify, only Republicans are true patriots.Yet none of them ever fought in our armed forces. Constantly playing the morality card, their frequent guests include Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Dick Morris - adulterers all.
Greed has invaded the party. They relentlessly whine about losing the Bush tax breaks. The IRS reveals the wealthiest Americans' average tax rate fell to 17 percent while their wealth doubled.
As Mr. Limbaugh said some years ago:"I'm an entertainer first and a conservative second."If this is how Republicans wish to be entertained, I believe my parents would be ashamed.This is no longer the Republican Party of my heritage.
I am very disturbed about The Blade's Feb. 15 article "Democrats move toward revival of Fairness Doctrine."
What these Democrats fail to see is that the Fairness Doctrine is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees free speech. It is a desperate attempt by liberals to squelch conservative radio talk shows, using their political influence to accomplish it.
The staff writers who wrote the article are bashing local AM station WSPD and its entire lineup of conservative talk show hosts, basically accusing them of slandering our President and Congress, and spreading rumors of our country turning into a socialistic society. It's obvious to me that liberal politicians are telling conservative talk show hosts to shut up.
If the conservative talk shows were not telling the truth about President Obama and the rest of the politicians in Washington, why would the Democrats feel threatened by them? I sincerely believe the Democrats want conservative radio regulated because too much truth is being exposed. The mainstream media is predominantly liberal to the core, and I'm sure they would not want to be regulated by conservative Republicans. We do not need more government involvement in anything. The best thing for our government to do is "butt out!"
We, as citizens, must not allow our elected officials, nor our judicial system, to infringe upon the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. When our constitutional rights are infringed upon, we must stand against those responsible, and remove them from public service at once. Remember, the government is supposed to answer to us, not the other way around.
Do not be deceived! The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness. A more fitting name for it would be "The Truth-Squelching Doctrine." And if anyone reading this doesn't really believe that we are becoming a socialist nation, I hope and pray you wake up before it's too late.
Gerry A. Troyer
The Blade's Feb. 15 front-page story about Democrats hoping to reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" spent more than one full page defending the merit of this First Amendment-stifling plan when the simple solution to their concerns was summed up by the very last sentence in the story: If you don't like what you hear on the radio, "just change the channel."
I read with interest the Feb. 17 letter from the nurse regarding electronic charting.As the chief executive officer of an electronic medical records vendor, I'm greatly concerned about the perceptions of health-care practitioners, especially the hardworking nurses and physicians who must deal frequently with record-keeping requirements.
The writer raisedthe question of whether charted items are actually read by the health-care provider.Indeed, with paper records, there is no practical means of knowing whether a particular person actually read a particular item.With electronic records, however, it's possible to know more.For example, a computerized system can create a record every time an item is opened. Such systems also provide for electronic "sign-off" on such items, adding a further layer of confirmation that can be readily assessed.
The nurse was also concerned about the confidentiality of electronic health records.Like all other forms of computerized information, they are subject to hacking; however, there are efforts continually under way by technology vendors to make electronic records safer and more secure, such as a recent agreement by hard drive manufacturers to encrypt data with firmware, rather than relying on software that the user can turn off.
It is also worth noting that a great deal of clinical data about most people in the United States is already in electronic form in the databases run by health insurers. Furthermore, with electronic record systems, it is possible to hold medical staff accountable for reviewing charts irresponsibly, as was seen in the recent case of employees spying on the charts of celebrities.
Finally, it should be noted that billions of people around the world use systems based on computerized record-keepingsimplybecause the benefits of such systems vastly outweigh the inherent risks.
William L. Horvath II
Oak Alley Court
We hoped for something smarter from Washington.
It's coming into focus now that the stimulus package will borrow $300 billion-plus to give us a tax break of $8-$16 per week. If $8 per week is going to stimulate my spending, look out, Arby's, here I come.
Is this the best idea Washington economists could come up with?I guess they're not smarter than a fifth-grader.Borrowing money to give us a tax break is like a failing bankrupt company taking a 30-year loan to give their employees a raise or a bonus.
Businesses do not hire people based on a meager tax break; businesses hire people when business is growing.We need money to create jobs or keep our automobile industry from failing during this downturn, not to buy fast food.
In regard to the letter from the gentleman who observed hundreds of people with handicap signs who did not look handicapped: You do not always have to have a cane or walker or other aid to assist you from your car. Many people are handicapped without the use of these items, such as my husband.
As he exited his car one day a passer-by said, You don t look handicapped to me. And he replied, You don t look like a doctor to me.
MARILYN A. TUCKER