Letter to the editor: Political balance has long been missing from Montana - Jerrold E. Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

Dr. Johnson doesn't write letters to the editor as often as he used to. So today's letter gives us more insight into someone who would represent himself as a moderate. It is a scattershot letter without focus or coherence, designed solely for the purpose of bashing Trump and furthering the false narrative of Jan 6th.

Dr. Johnson will advocate for "balance," whatever that means, but doesn't seem to understand that each and every elected official was put in place by the voters of Montana. There is no such thing as "balance," there is only the result of elections.

---------------------

Letter writer should have checked his facts - By Jerrold E. Johnson

My comments in bold.

-------------------

First Mr. Christiansen's letter:

Assault weapons should be restricted to military - By Jerrold E. Johnson

My comments in bold.

-----------------------

 The second amendment reads: a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be abridged.

This suggests to me that the government (we, the people) has the right to regulate who can own and shoot them. ("Well regulated” does not mean “government regulations on guns.” The militia is to be “well regulated,” that is, organized and orderly.)

Good government both liberal and conservative - By Jerrold E. Johnson

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------

Dr. Johnson doesn't seem to understand what conservatives believe. Or liberals for that matter.
--------------------------

America needs to reassess noble goals - letter by Jerrold Johnson

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------------

Mr. Johnson has appeared in my sights before. I believe he was a doctor, although his content and logical skills do not always seem to be consistent with that. However, in this letter he and I actually agree on some things. Read on.

-----------------

Since Vietnam 50 years ago we have found ourselves in one quagmire after another with our pre-emptive war strategy. I support Obama and feel he is trying to do the right thing, but I don’t support engaging Syria militarily. (At first a lot of leftists were silent on the issue. The customary hysterical invective from the leftwing activists was nearly non-existent. Then after a while, some leftist pundits began a timid opposition. More have joined their ranks, so that there is enough of Obama's traditional allies opposing him that he abruptly decided to belatedly seek congressional approval. Mr. Johnson also gives tepid condemnation of a potential invasion of Syria.) 

I do give him credit for being cautious. After 9-11, George W. Bush made a hasty decision (America invaded Iraq on the 19 of March 2003, 2 1/2 years after the World Trade Center attack. Hasty?) 

to invade Iraq when it was not involved with the terrorist attack, (That's a pretty broad statement. Al Qaeda was responsible for the WTC attacks, and Al Qaeda was and is in operation in Iraq, as well as many other middle eastern countries. Why we attacked Iraq is a matter of conjecture, since there were a lot of factors at work. This is not to say I supported the invasion, because I didn't. I am simply objecting to the generalization made as if it is a stark fact.) 

said “Mission accomplished” six weeks later and we left Iraq almost nine years later in a mess. For our tragic 9-11 loss of 2,996, we caused 89,000 direct deaths, lost 4,488 of our young men and women, (here is a chart of deaths per month up until the US began its pull out in December 2011. You'll note that deaths continued to pile up during the Obama administration, and persist even to this day. This only means that Mr. Johnson is apparently unable to separate the deaths that occurred under Bush's watch from those of Obama. Obama was terribly slow in taking action to get out of Iraq, so any protestations about Obama inheriting the situation are mitigated by the lack of immediacy on Obama's part.)

(The other thing about the death tally is the fact that every sort of death that could be remotely connected to the war is included, things like lack of healthcare, food, and medicine because commerce had been interrupted, deaths caused by terrorists themselves, friendly fire, etc. Again, I did not support the war, so I have no intention in justifying the deaths.)  

had 32,230 injured (not including PTSD), killed 132,000 civilians, spent $1.7 trillion (More like $758 billion) putting us into serious debt and have a Congress that wants to pay for it off the backs of the poor and middle class. (We were already in serious debt. A commensurate sum has been spent on bailouts and shovel-ready jobs, none of which has helped the economy at at all. As far as who is going to pay for it, well, the poor have no money. We all are going to pay for it. The weight of the debt inflicted upon us has far reaching economic effects. From my perspective, it doesn't matter what the source of the debt is. It is free spending politicians who are to blame, and they are also to blame for the continuing bad economy, saddled by enormous debt and invasive government regulation.)

The sanctimonious oratory about deaths from poison gas has a hollow ring when comparing 1,000 deaths to 100,000. (Oops. Did he intend to talk about Obama in this disparaging way? He does not name Obama, but Obama has talked in this very manner.) 

There is no way to make one death in war “nicer” than another. Is it better to get shot, blown up, napalmed, nuked, bombed, or stabbed than poisoned? When we used the atom bomb we killed roughly 200,000 civilians and many died from radiation — not illegal so far as I know. We used poison gas Agent Orange despite 5,000 scientists saying no. We sprayed 1/7th of Vietnam affecting 5 million peasants and 200,000 U.S. military, causing 400,000 deaths and 500,000 children with birth defects.

We preach noble values, yet we sell the most arms in the world, have seldom met a dictator we couldn’t support (until they turn our weapons against us), and strike first at the hint of a threat. (Hmm. Note the multiple uses of "we," as if "we" are somehow to blame and not Obama. In his outrage at the Syrian situation he managed to prominently mention Bush, Agent Orange, the atomic bomb, and napalm. But he cannot bring himself to mention Obama more than once, and that to offer a weak objection to the President's planned Syrian response. The bulk of his letter is about Bush and the Iraq war, previous atrocities, and the economic cost of war. This is classic leftist thought process; deflect, obfuscate, and divert outrage to other events and people so as to minimize damage to their heroes.)

Jerrold E. Johnson Bozeman

Mr. (Dr.) Johnson responds

Dear Rich,

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. I used the dictionary for your name for some attempt at humor, perhaps lame. Actually I only used the first definition as it leads to the broader definition of the second. 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.

The reason I referred to the Republican candidates is because instead of discussing jobs, they have been talking about laws for social issues. 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." 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.

I agree with you that the Republicans have also screwed up. I was once a diehard Republican. But their attitudes on taxes don't follow the Constitution. They don't appear to realize when you incur debts, they must be paid back with interest--taxes are the usual source. 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.

People gripe about regulation, but you wouldn't be too happy if I weren't regulated as a physician. 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 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.

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. Big banks also eagerly took bailouts and then gave bonuses. Understanding that you are independent in your thinking, ! 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.

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." I spent two years on the Chronicle board from 2002 to 2004, wrote a few guest columns and editorials. I write about four to six letters a year, my last about your column where I actually agreed with you to some degree. Usually when I write a letter to the editor, I can expect one or two positive comments, and occasionally none. 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. The last was when I was skiing yesterday was a waiter at Jimmy B's at Bridger Bowl. I asked him how he knew it was me. He said it was the different spelling of my name.

It appears with you I hit a raw nerve. Although I'd say I'm a progressive, and want to help people down and out, I still belong strongly 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 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. I'm including a few essays that give you an idea how I think.