I need to apologize for my previous response to Mr. Bank's list of statements or questions, which he presented as food for thought. His question comparing enforcement of Roe vs. Wade with enforcement of the Second Amendment struck me as rather silly.
To the editor:
I need to apologize for my previous response to Mr. Bank's list of statements or questions, which he presented as food for thought. His question comparing enforcement of Roe vs. Wade with enforcement of the Second Amendment struck me as rather silly. His letter yesterday described a deep context behind the topic. I don't agree with a lot of his argument, but he and I are kindred spirits, in that we write letters with the hope of getting others to think.
He included a long quotation from James Madison. This seems to point out how difficult it is to communicate when we have only words to do it with. We live within a constant war of words, and words are weapons, make no mistake. We use words and combinations of words to battle for power. Words often hide or repaint the truth. Words captured the last presidential election. Truth and logic played a lesser part.
Mr. Bank's idea of using questions to stimulate thought in the reader is worthy. I thought he needed to provide a bit of context with them. For example, here's a question I'll throw out:
"What is the purpose of government?"
Some context: I agree with the Declaration of Independence: the purpose of government, paraphrased a bit, is "to secure the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
You could write a book on what exactly Life, Liberty, and Happiness should be, and how the government should go about securing them.
Another question: "How much security should the federal government provide to common citizens?"
To elaborate: Is the current set of entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Health Care Act, disability, unemployment, food stamps, and on and on – enough, and can we pay for them all? Do we need comprehensive entitlement reform?
A theory now held by some scientists asserts that mankind's intelligence is gradually declining. We don't need to be smart when technology simplifies life. It is increasingly easier for dummies to survive, marry, vote, and breed. Processed foods, some say, have ill effects on intelligence. I know mine is declining, and I'm eating lots of processed foods.
Mr. Banks and I both want the readers to think, in the forlorn hope that the public will become able to make wise political decisions.