Regarding
your latest letter, I appreciate you taking the time to write me back. But I
notice that once again you have very little to say about what I wrote. However,
you do have a lot to say about Republicans, which is curious indeed. So I
wonder, why do you find it so difficult to focus on what we’re talking about?
Ok, so
here's my direct responses to your latest, which are interlaced and in bold:
“Actually I
do get a little upset when I read your columns, but in this case I thought
about it for four days before I wrote my letter, waiting to see if I felt the
same--I did.” Ironically, you claimed
below that you hit a raw nerve with me, but it is clear that you are already in
that state yourself.
“I used the
dictionary for your name for some attempt at humor, perhaps lame.” You think it is funny to attempt to insult someone’s
intelligence? Forgive me for not laughing.
“You didn't
mention Democrats, but nine out of ten people will think you are referring to
Democrats when you say left or progressive, particularly when it's you who are
using it those terms.” I would expect
that nine out of ten people who were educated and paying attention would know
the difference. Since they’re clearly not the same, and now that you know my
context, does this in any way change what you think about the matter?
“The reason
I referred to the Republican candidates is because instead of discussing jobs,
they have been talking about laws for social issues.” Yet you continue to prattle on about Republicans. Why?
“Your second paragraph ends, ‘There ought to be a law!’
Changing a word or so, your third paragraph could read, ‘if I were a part of
the political right, that would be the answer. The right love to tell people
what to do. They are all about controlling people's lives, for their own good
of course.’ Rather than refute what I
wrote, you simply assert that “my” side does it too. Once again, it isn’t “my”
side! Further, your comments are a diversion. Bad behavior from one cannot be
used to justify bad behavior from another.
“The
Republicans or political right have no problem with laws when it comes to our
personal lives. This is particularly evident in the states working for laws
that interfere with women's health issues. This addresses your second to last
paragraph re big government controlling people.” You persist in conflating Republicans with the political right. I will
no longer accept your comments about this. Until you obtain clarity, there is
little I can explain to you.
The fact remains that the Left is
distressingly comfortable with bringing the power of government to bear on
law-abiding citizens. So do you have any refutation of this, or are you
conceding the point?
“I agree
with you that the Republicans have also screwed up...They
don't appear to realize when you incur debts, they must be paid back with
interest--taxes are the usual source.” Sigh.
Once again we are talking about Republicans. Ok, I’ll indulge you one last
time. Give me a list of notable Republicans that have suggested we do not pay
back the debt.
“Government
does create jobs that private industry won't touch to begin with. An example is
NASA. The miniaturization in space technology had a spin off into Silicon Valley and other industrial progress.”
Apparently you missed my point. I didn’t
say that government doesn’t employ people. Nor did I discuss whether or not
government programs have produced good results. I said that government doesn’t
create jobs.
You do understand this, don’t you?
In order for government to hire someone, it must first take the money it needs
from the private sector. So for every person hired for public work, there is less cash in the private sector to hire employees.
And by the way, regarding NASA. You
do not seem to know that the government prohibited private companies from entering
space without the space shuttle, until Reagan signed the Commercial Space
Launch act. In other words, it was illegal for business to do what you fault
them for not doing.
“People
gripe about regulation, but you wouldn't be too happy if I weren't regulated as
a physician.” No, people gripe about the
unconstitutional insertion of government into the private affairs of people.
People do not gripe about generic regulation. You are constructing a strawman.
Few, if anyone, believe in no laws. Conservatives/ libertarians are not
anarchists.
People without integrity will break
laws, and people with integrity will obey them. Therefore, my comfort comes
from people who are moral and law abiding, not from government regulation.
“You are in
insurance and it was not unusual for me to go to bat for a patient with the
commissioner when the company wouldn't pay an honest claim. I also had patients
who wanted to have me lie for them on an exam or claim and I would say, ‘if I
lie for you, what's to keep me from lying to you?’" I am happy that you approach your profession with integrity. This is a
choice you have made apart from regulation, isn’t it?
“I also
agree that government tends to approach all issues with the same approach,
e.g., use an elephant gun to shoot a mosquito as well as an elephant. Specifics, please. Up ‘til now it seemed
that government could do no wrong in your estimation.
“As to
‘values’ mentioned in your column yesterday, remember it's tough not to be
concerned when your wages have gone down relative to inflation whereas CEOs who
have lost money for their corporations get golden parachutes and lots of options.”
Perhaps you could tell me how other
people receiving money has any impact on your life at all. Also, maybe you
could tell me how a private company, following the legal contract it signed
with the CEO, no matter how foolish the deal might be, is a matter for
government.
“Big banks
also eagerly took bailouts and then gave bonuses.” This is clearly a failure of government, since the “pay czar” was
supposed to police this. And you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the
political right was unanimous in its opposition to the bailouts.
“Understanding
that you are independent in your thinking, I thought you might find it
interesting that in the last 50 years if you had invested one thousand dollars
in the market only during each of the Republican eras, you would by now have
two thousand and a few hundred dollars. If you had done the same and kept in
the market only during Democrat eras, you would have amassed ten thousand
dollars.” Republicans again? Good grief.
Have I been unclear? I will not defend a position I have not taken. Do you
understand this yet?
Another simplistic, superficial
correlation. You should know by now that I am not interested in these. Do you
not remember your “Bill Clinton raised taxes and created 23 million jobs”
debacle? You exhibit no regard at all for who was in power in other branches of
government for the time periods in question, or for wars, bailouts, government
interventions in the economy, tax policy, and any relevant regulatory and
political environment that may have influenced the economy.
“Finally,
it appears to me you vent a lot in your columns with much righteous
indignation. Remember, Harry Truman said, ‘if you can't stand the heat, stay
out of the kitchen.’" A truly odd
comment. I have been writing letters to the editor for decades, and my column
for two years now. But I am somehow unable to stand the heat I receive? What?
I’m still in the kitchen, but have
little patience for the critics who cause the heat, yet who don’t know what I
am cooking but nevertheless feel free to pontificate about my food.
“I write
about four to six letters a year, my last about your column where I actually
agreed with you to some degree.” A backhanded compliment along with an obligatory denigrating comment. Sorry, I’m not
impressed.
“In this
past letter that we are addressing now, I got one neutral comment and ten
thanking me for writing it-more than any letter I've ever written.” Considering how focused you are on
Republicans, I’m sure that Republican bashing probably plays big in your circle
of friends. I really don’t care. All my friends love my columns. So this proves…
what?
“It appears
with you I hit a raw nerve.” Unthinking
regurgitation of talking points unrelated to what I write never sits well with
me.
“Although
I'd say I'm a progressive, and want to help people down and out, I still belong
strongly in personal responsibility.” A
curious statement. Am I to believe that you think progressives generally don’t
believe in personal responsibility?
“I might
add, I have no problem with mandating health insurance. If you choose not to
have health insurance and are injured in someway; you should have tattooed on
your chest, ‘Leave me to die as I chose not to be insured.’” I happen to agree that people should bear
the results of their choices without interference from a do-gooder government. And
this person is also free to receive charity, if the charity is so inclined.
But if insurance is mandated, how
could this person be uninsured?
“I say this
and yet volunteer to see patients who need help at Community Health Partners,
am a member of the Local Advisory Council on Mental Health, and volunteer at
the Salvation Army and Gallatin Valley Food Bank. Good for you. But that seems to be in violation of progressive
principles. A couple of days ago in the Chronicle, a progressive letter writer bemoaned the
existence of charities, desiring that government would totally replace them.
“I'm
including a few essays that give you an idea how I think.” Thanks for sending them, but I have no desire to respond to them.
Dr. Johnson, I had hoped that you
would have provided me with a cogent response, but so much of what you wrote about
is regarding a political persuasion I am not a part of and care little about.
Perhaps if you choose to respond to this letter you might be a little more
careful to address the topics at hand.
You will note that I quoted you
profusely, and directly responded to each of your comments. This is my practice,
one that I recommend you embrace as well.
Thanks for your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment