Thursday, January 12, 2012

Letters to the editor...




.

... that caught our eye over the past week in the San Diego Union-Tribune.




With respect to the 4 crosses at Camp Pendleton honoring 4 dead Marines, Douglas L. Inman of La Jolla writes:

The crosses were intended as memorials to four fallen Marines but have a special meaning to those who fought in World War II. None of the letters about the crosses published in the U-T on December 31st addressed that meaning.

I am a 91-year old Marine Corps Reserve officer, retired university professor, and survivor of the landing on Peleliu in 1944. The significance of the cross for battlefield casualties has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the press of war. Battlefield casualties often require rapid burial that precludes sorting out religious preferences. At Peleliu, Japanese snipers were still firing from Bloody Nose Ridge while the burial team was placing bodies in the soil. A single stake as marker would soon be lost, but a cross is simpler and easier to find in the flotsam of war. Thus it became the marker of choice for battlefield burials.

In the field, we were all supportive of each other regardless of religion. I can assure you that we did not think of my buddy Kehoe as a Jewish boy from Philadelphia who was buried under a Christian symbol, but rather that he was our comrade in arms and buried under the traditional battlefield symbol of honor, the cross.

That places the cross within an entirely different context: a battlefield symbol of honor. It is unfortunate that it bothers some people, but life is often that way.

We had not heard that specific utilitarian angle before. And thank you for your service to our country, Mr. Inman.





And here's Stephanie Jenkins of San Diego with praise for an Occupy activist:

Thank you for the article about the Occupy activist named Nicole. It is very nice to see that there are people who care about more than their paycheck and want to contribute to society. I’m certain she has taken her fair share of insults but as Mahatma Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.” It seems clear to me that this movement isn’t going anywhere thanks to young women like this.
(italics, ours)

Truer words have never been spoken for the sedentary lot that makes up Obama's Whining Squatters.





And here we provide some running paranthetical commentary to La Mesa resident, Daniel R. Sanley's contention with the U-T's assessment of the Obama presidency:


The Jan. 5 U-T editorial (The beginning of the end”) referred to “a failed Obama presidency.”

Troops home from Iraq (by agreement hammered out between previous administration and Iraqi government), flawed “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy scraped, saved us from a depression (Furious spin. We were promised unemployment would not go above 8% if Porkulus passed), plus job creation during a major recession he didn’t start (Ah, the old job creation myth. If one wants to say that Obama "saved" jobs, at $500,000 a job in many cases, then go right ahead), Social Security tax relief (Dubious achievement considering the teetering finances of Social Security as it is), extended unemployment benefits (Another dubious achievement considering the whole idea of pro-growth economic policies is to effectively get people off unemployment benefits, a concept seeming lost on Team O), aggressive use of drones and special forces to reduce enemy leaders (Re: drone strikes. The One doesn't want to be bothered with the sticky situation of detaining the bad guys - better off just whacking them. And we assume Dan is also referring to our unauthorized overseas military kinetics in Libya. Glad to see all of Bush's transgressions washed away here in his 3rd term), assisting students with higher education cost relief (... that is doing absolutely nothing to actually reduce the cost of higher education), encouraging alternative energy businesses (we're assuming that's a pretty big rock in La Mesa under which Dan is residing if he's managed to be out of ear shot of the President's hopelessy failed crony capitalist loan program run by the Department of Energy), proposed “balanced” method reducing the deficit (say it: "raise taxes". Besides, Obama had both houses of Congress for two whole years and did quite the opposite with respect reducing the deficit), increased health care coverage (via an unconstitutional mandate) and improvements in current plans for millions of Americans (which will most likely cost more than what millions of Americans will be able to afford), and added checks and balances for corporate abuses (the Dodd-Frank fin-reg bill will only preserve the status quo for Wall St. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank co-sponsored the damn thing for crying out loud).

I would call this presidency anything but a failure.


As previously stated, we would beg to differ.

.

2 comments:

Harrison said...

Quite a letter from an old timer. I think that many who would seek to re-write history wish for those who were there to completely die out so no dissenting voices will be left to point out how it really was.

DAN IN LA MESA CA said...

MY REBUTAL TO YOUR COMMENTS ON MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT REGARDING OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS (lower case) ARE IN CAPS (DAN)-Troops home from Iraq: IF MCSAME WERE PREZ WE WOULD STILL BE THERE. HEAR HIM LATELY? Saved us from a ression: NOT A SPIN THAT UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN 20%RANGE. THE HOUSING MARKET IS STILL A MESS AND UNTIL WE OVERCOME THAT HOLE UNEMPLOYMENT WILL NOT IMPROVE. THE 8% WAS A NOBLE TARGET, WHO CAN BE AS PRECISE AS YOU SEEM TO THINK POSSIBLE? job creation: THE COST WAS NOT AS HIGH AS CONTRA-O'S ARGUE, PLUS HAD WE SPENT MORE THE COST PER RECOVERY WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER. WE DID NOT SPEND ENOUGH WITH THE "CHEAP" MONEY WE CURRENTLY HAVE AVAILABLE. THIS WAS THE BEST TIME TO SPEND AND INVEST. Social Security tax relief: I MIGHT AGREE THAT SS IS NOT A PLACE TO CUT REVENUES BUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IS NOT AS BAD OFF AS CONTRA'S ARGUE. PLUS HAD THE US GOV HELD THE FUNDS IN TRUST, WE WOULD BE IN GREAT SHAPE. OUR PROBLEM IS WE RAIDED THE FUNDS. extended unemployment benefits: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DO NOT PROVIDE GROWTH AND INVESTMENT, AGREED, BUT THE LENGTH OF COVERAGE WAS FOR A NORMAL WORK ENVIORNMENT WHICH WE HAVE NOT BEEN IN. WE ARE IN A RECESSION AND BENEFITS NEEDED TO REFLECT THIS. PLUS UNEMPL IS "INSURANCE" AND WILL BE FUNDED. aggressive use of drones: AFTER TAKING OFFICE OBAMA IMMEDIATELY BEGAN AGGRESSIVE USE OF DRONES TAKING OUT ENEMY LEADERS. MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE MEASURE THAN SENDING TROOPS IN TO FIGHT AND DIE. YOU CHANGED THE FOCUS A BIT BRINGING UP DETAINMENT. ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH NO ONE HAS AN ANSWER FOR. HAVEN'T HEARD ONE YET. AND YOUR "OPINION" IS THAT OUR INVOLVEMENT IN LIBYA WAS UNAUTHORIZED. WE DID THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT THING IN LIBYA (CONTRARY TO MCSAME WHO WHO HAVE HAD US IN ANOTHER GROUND WAR) WE ARE PART OF NATO AND HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO THAT ORG., BUT FOR ONCE WE DIDN'T HAVE TO CARRY ALL THE WEIGHT. BRAVO O. assisting students with higher education cost relief: AGREED RELIEF FOR STUDENTS WILL NOT BRING DOWN THE COSTS, BUT ANOTHER ISSUE AND WHO HAS PUT A PROPOSAL OUT THERE? IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND, WE NEED TO FOCUS SPENDING ON INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE. HELPING HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLEES IS A GOOD START. encouraging alternative energy businesses: WHO IS UNDER A ROCK? THE US JUST TOOK THE LEAD IN ALT ENERGY DEV, OVERTAKING CHINA. SOME OF EUROPE'S CORPS ARE CLOSING PLANTS. WE ARE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.proposed “balanced” method reducing the deficit: "RAISING TAXES" IS PART OF A "BALANCED APPROACH". THE FIRST YEARS OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY HAD TO DEAL WITH THE RECESSION AND WAS NOT THE TIME FOR CUTTING COSTS OR INCREASING TAXES. HIS TIMING WAS PERFECT BUT CONGRESS DOES NOT COOPERATE WITH ANY COMMON SENSE PLAN NOW OR THEN. increased health care coverage: ONE THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS PEOPLE TAKING "OPINION" AND STATING IT AS FACT. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED THAT THE "MADATE" TO PURCHASE INSURANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. EVERYTHING ELSE I STATED HERE IS MY OPINION, BUT THIS IS FACT. YOU MAY BE RIGHT ABOUT THE COST OF COVERING HEALTH CARE, AS MANY HEALTH CARE COSTS WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE, BUT THE CURRENT LEGISLATION HAS PROVISIONS IN IT THAT WILL REDUCE COSTS AS WELL. IF SOMETHING IS TOO COSTLY WE FIX THE SYTEM AND NOT TOSS OUT THE PROGRAM AS AN ALTERNATIVE. IT IS TIME WE BEGIN TO WORK TOGETHER WITH COMMON SOLUTIONS VS. JUST SUPPORTING IDEOLOGIES added checks and balances for corporate abuses: I THINK THE LAW MAKERS WHO PUT TOGETHER THE NEW LAWS DID A GREAT JOB, TAKING THEIR TIME AND BALANCING THINGS BEFORE PROPOSING. WE NEEDED THESE PROTECTIONS BECAUSE CORPORATE GREED GOT US IN THE MESS WE ARE IN. IF YOU THINK 8% IS A MESS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A WHOLE LOT WORSE WITH ANY OTHER LEADER IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.