Republicans in Congress are complaining about the anticipated cost of health care. It is a political smokescreen. All they want is to make President Obama look bad. It will be easy to pay for health care reform if Democrats have the guts to impose necessary taxes on the rich and cut wasteful programs.
Last week Goldman Sachs, the financial firm that had to be bailed-out to survive, announced that it would be rewarding hundreds of its employees with multi-million dollar bonuses. Other banks and financial companies are paying-back bailout money so they can do the same. What can the government do? The answer is, give them a swift kick in their assets and tax them to pay for health care.
The House Ways and Means Committee has released a plan to introduce a surcharge with graduated rates from 1-3 percent on household incomes over $350,000 to help finance health care reform (I would make the surcharge higher). According to a report just released by Citizens for Tax Justice, it would raise approximately $540-550 billion over 10 years. There will also be a surcharge on companies that do not provide health care for their employees. That will provide tens of billions of dollars more to pay for health care reform. There is also a proposal to tax health insurance benefits for people earning over $1 million a year. Add all that to the premiums that will be paid by people getting governmental insurance, and you should be able to more than cover the cost of healthcare.
But if the surcharges, taxes, and premiums do not cover everything, where is the money going to come from? Well, a panel of 45 of the nation’s leading economists predicted for the National Association for Business Economics Outlook that the recession will be over by 2010. Tax revenue will rise dramatically. In addition, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will expire in late 2010. According to the Brookings Institution, those tax cuts cost the government over $400 billion per year.
There are other ways the government can save money. Let’s start with one of the major boondoggles of out time, farm subsidies. The government pays about $16 billion a year to subsidize agriculture. The majority of these subsidies flow only to corporate farms. Farm income reached new highs in 2007 and 2008 with the USDA estimating an average farm household’s income in 2008 at almost $90,000. The government should simply abolish all farm subsidies.
As Iraq war winds down there will be large savings in military spending. In addition, the conservative Cato Institute has called for Congress to terminate or reduce procurement of a number of unneeded weapon systems, including the Air Force’s F-22 fighter (now voted-down by the Senate), the Navy’s F/A-18E/F aircraft, the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine, the Marine Corps’ V-22 transport aircraft, and the Army’s Comanche helicopter. Cato says that elimination or reduction of these items could save the government over $340 billion in the next ten years. Defense Secretary Gates also wants Congress to eliminate the presidential helicopter, the Air Force's C-17 cargo jet, the F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, and an alternative F-35 engine (also voted-down by the Senate), saving more billions of dollars. There are many other military programs that can be eliminated.
There is no need for another trip to the moon which could cost $40 billion. And we do not need to subsidize the oil industry, which has reported gigantic profits the past few years, to the tune of $15 billion dollars a year. We should be taxing the windfall profits of the oil companies, not subsidizing them!
Through taxing policy and cuts in wasteful programs, we could not only pay for health care, but have large surpluses by the end of President Obama’s presidency.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Judge Sotomayor and the Republicans
At the time of the 2008 elections, Hispanics represented 15 percent of the U.S. population. That number is growing rapidly. They are the largest minority group in America. They have sufficient numbers to determine the outcome of all national elections and of the elections in at least 20 states. In the years to come we will have to require all school children in America to learn Spanish. In the past they have supported Republican candidates, but in 2008 they voted overwhelmingly for President Obama. So what did a group of white male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do? They patronized, browbeat, and disrespected a distinguished female Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court. Nice going guys! I hope every Hispanic voter in America remembers this the next time they go to the polls.
In her 17 years on the U.S. district and circuit (appellate) courts, Judge Sotomayor has written over 1000 decisions. Because the Republicans were unable to find even one case where she was not fair and impartial, they dredged-up a non-judicial statement made in a speech in 2001 where she said: “"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life." Despite the fact that Judge Samuel Alito and other nominees to the Supreme Court have said that they would rely on similar experiences and background in deciding cases, the Republican members of the white male senators’ club were horrified that a Hispanic woman would make such a statement. God forbid that she should have any special feelings for Hispanic people! God forbid that she should have empathy!
What is wrong with having a little empathy for the poor and the downtrodden? As one who practiced law for 37 years in the state and federal courts of New York and Connecticut, I can tell you that the law is not and never has been impartial or equal. The law has always favored rich people, big corporations, wealthy institutions, and white people. When I practiced in New York City, the courthouses were a symbol of the law’s preference for the rich and powerful over the poor.
The richer the people and corporations whose cases appeared in court in New York, the better the courthouses, judges, and court personnel. The most beautiful courthouse in New York City was the Surrogates Court where issues regarding multi-million dollar estates were decided. It was like a Renaissance Palace. The next most beautiful courthouse was the federal court where all of the really big money cases were decided. As you went down the line of courts having lower and lower amounts of money jurisdiction, the courts became dingier and dingier, with less distinguished judges and less courteous court personnel.
Judge Sotomayor is an inspiring example of what a brilliant Hispanic woman can accomplish. She was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at Princeton and graduated from that university summa cum laude. She went on to Yale Law School where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and Managing Editor of the Yale Journal of International Law. After Yale, she served as an assistant district attorney, litigator in a prestigious private law firm, and federal district and appeals court judge for 17 years. She has won honorary degrees and many awards.
What Judge Sotomayor showed me at her senate hearing was dignity and patience with those little men and their annoying little questions. She also exemplified the fact that Hispanics have become a major part of American life, and that Hispanic leaders, language, and culture will continue to increase and spread so as to strengthen and enrich America and make it a better nation.
In her 17 years on the U.S. district and circuit (appellate) courts, Judge Sotomayor has written over 1000 decisions. Because the Republicans were unable to find even one case where she was not fair and impartial, they dredged-up a non-judicial statement made in a speech in 2001 where she said: “"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life." Despite the fact that Judge Samuel Alito and other nominees to the Supreme Court have said that they would rely on similar experiences and background in deciding cases, the Republican members of the white male senators’ club were horrified that a Hispanic woman would make such a statement. God forbid that she should have any special feelings for Hispanic people! God forbid that she should have empathy!
What is wrong with having a little empathy for the poor and the downtrodden? As one who practiced law for 37 years in the state and federal courts of New York and Connecticut, I can tell you that the law is not and never has been impartial or equal. The law has always favored rich people, big corporations, wealthy institutions, and white people. When I practiced in New York City, the courthouses were a symbol of the law’s preference for the rich and powerful over the poor.
The richer the people and corporations whose cases appeared in court in New York, the better the courthouses, judges, and court personnel. The most beautiful courthouse in New York City was the Surrogates Court where issues regarding multi-million dollar estates were decided. It was like a Renaissance Palace. The next most beautiful courthouse was the federal court where all of the really big money cases were decided. As you went down the line of courts having lower and lower amounts of money jurisdiction, the courts became dingier and dingier, with less distinguished judges and less courteous court personnel.
Judge Sotomayor is an inspiring example of what a brilliant Hispanic woman can accomplish. She was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at Princeton and graduated from that university summa cum laude. She went on to Yale Law School where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and Managing Editor of the Yale Journal of International Law. After Yale, she served as an assistant district attorney, litigator in a prestigious private law firm, and federal district and appeals court judge for 17 years. She has won honorary degrees and many awards.
What Judge Sotomayor showed me at her senate hearing was dignity and patience with those little men and their annoying little questions. She also exemplified the fact that Hispanics have become a major part of American life, and that Hispanic leaders, language, and culture will continue to increase and spread so as to strengthen and enrich America and make it a better nation.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Health Insurance Industry Lies
The campaign by the health insurance industry to stop enactment of a governmental health insurance program (the “public option”) has begun with a string of dishonest and misleading commercials warning that enactment of a public option will result in 119 million people being without health insurance coverage. It is a blatant lie! Nobody will be without coverage. John Sheils of the Lewin Group, the group that did the study used by the insurance industry to come up with the 119 million figure, admitted to CNN that: “No one is going to lose their private insurance. We think 119 people will voluntarily move to the public plan.”
The insurance industry claims that a public option will lead to socialized medicine and that socialized medicine has been a disaster for the countries that have it. This is false on several counts. First, the public option will not lead to socialized medicine. It will be no different than the several other forms of governmental health insurance we already have, including Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and Government Employees Health Insurance. We will still have a private health care system with private doctors and hospitals and individual choice of such doctors and hospitals.
Secondly, it will not lead to the kinds of problems they claim for countries with single-payer systems--longer waits for necessary procedures, rationing of health care, and bureaucratic meddling in health care decisions. Just as none of this has been true under Medicare, it will not be true under a public option. When you add 47 million new people to the heath care rolls, it might result in slightly longer waits for elective procedures. People who have put-off necessary medical treatment will now be able to go in before it is too late. This might cause some delays due to the need for more doctors and health care personnel. But that is a good thing, not a disaster to be avoided.
A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund of six highly industrialized countries found that waiting times for elective surgery in European countries with single-payer systems were no worse than in the United States. While Canada has longer waits for elective surgeries than the United States, it has no waits for emergency surgeries. It also does not have 47 million people who are uninsured. In Canada, everyone has a national healthcare card guaranteeing health care from any doctor or hospital they choose. And Canada does not burden insured people with rising deductibles or co-pays.
According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), Canada surpasses the U.S. in a broad array of health barometers, including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality rates, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable diseases.
America has by far the most expensive health care system in the world. Yet the WHO ranks the United States as 37th in the world in the quality of health care. Americans in droves are going abroad for medical treatment, especially surgery, to countries with single-payer medical systems.
The insurance companies want people to think that there is wide opposition to a public option. However, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out June 17, 2009, showed that 76 percent of Americans support creation of a public option. Other recent polls show similar majorities in favor of a public option (83 percent by EBRI, a conservative business research organization, and 72 percent by a CBS News/New York Times poll).
The only thing that is keeping the Congress from enacting a public option now is the sheer money, power, and influence of the health insurance lobby and the subservience of its Republican lackeys in Congress. I confess that I do not understand why any people are standing-up for these greedy, dishonest insurance bandits when we need universal health care so badly.
The insurance industry claims that a public option will lead to socialized medicine and that socialized medicine has been a disaster for the countries that have it. This is false on several counts. First, the public option will not lead to socialized medicine. It will be no different than the several other forms of governmental health insurance we already have, including Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and Government Employees Health Insurance. We will still have a private health care system with private doctors and hospitals and individual choice of such doctors and hospitals.
Secondly, it will not lead to the kinds of problems they claim for countries with single-payer systems--longer waits for necessary procedures, rationing of health care, and bureaucratic meddling in health care decisions. Just as none of this has been true under Medicare, it will not be true under a public option. When you add 47 million new people to the heath care rolls, it might result in slightly longer waits for elective procedures. People who have put-off necessary medical treatment will now be able to go in before it is too late. This might cause some delays due to the need for more doctors and health care personnel. But that is a good thing, not a disaster to be avoided.
A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund of six highly industrialized countries found that waiting times for elective surgery in European countries with single-payer systems were no worse than in the United States. While Canada has longer waits for elective surgeries than the United States, it has no waits for emergency surgeries. It also does not have 47 million people who are uninsured. In Canada, everyone has a national healthcare card guaranteeing health care from any doctor or hospital they choose. And Canada does not burden insured people with rising deductibles or co-pays.
According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), Canada surpasses the U.S. in a broad array of health barometers, including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality rates, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable diseases.
America has by far the most expensive health care system in the world. Yet the WHO ranks the United States as 37th in the world in the quality of health care. Americans in droves are going abroad for medical treatment, especially surgery, to countries with single-payer medical systems.
The insurance companies want people to think that there is wide opposition to a public option. However, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out June 17, 2009, showed that 76 percent of Americans support creation of a public option. Other recent polls show similar majorities in favor of a public option (83 percent by EBRI, a conservative business research organization, and 72 percent by a CBS News/New York Times poll).
The only thing that is keeping the Congress from enacting a public option now is the sheer money, power, and influence of the health insurance lobby and the subservience of its Republican lackeys in Congress. I confess that I do not understand why any people are standing-up for these greedy, dishonest insurance bandits when we need universal health care so badly.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Creation Museum
Nescience in Northern Kentucky
In order to get from Dayton, Ohio, to the Creation Museum out near the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport, one has to drive over bedrock of Ordovician and Silurian rocks that were deposited between about 435 and 445 million years ago. World geography was quite different then. North America straddled the equator and Ohio was located south of the equator. The Ohio River did not exist. From a geological standpoint, the Ohio River is quite young. It was formed on a piecemeal basis beginning between 2.5 and 3 million years ago from north-flowing rivers dammed by the early ice ages.
In late May, 2009, seventy paleontologists took a break from a conference at the University of Cincinnati and drove over Ordovician bedrock to visit the Creation Museum. I’m sure that they were interested in seeing not only the displays at the museum, but also the living fossils of a species that was thought to have become extinct at the time of the European Enlightenment; the irrational, superstitious, religious believers for whom modern science means nothing. Contrary to popular belief, long after the time of Galileo and Columbus this kind of people continued to believe that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Today, they insist that the earth is 6000 years old. They believe this despite the fact that everybody knows that even Dick Clark is more than 6000 years old.
One display at the museum shows two prehistoric children playing while dinosaurs, which became extinct 63 million years before the human species developed, cavort nearby. The scientists visiting the museum were astonished. "I'm speechless," said Derek E.G. Briggs, director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale; "It's rather scary.” Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology, and evolution at University of California, Berkeley, said: “It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?” Lisa Park, a University of Akron professor of paleontology, who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, called it "bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me."
Leaving aside the geological evidence, it doesn’t seem likely that the earth began 6000 years ago. There was already a flourishing civilization in Egypt 6000 years ago. British archaeologists have found 30 sites rich in art chiseled into rocks up to 6,000 years ago in the desert east of the Nile. The rock drawings show cattle, boats, ostriches, giraffes, hippos and the men and women who lived in the area in 4,000 BC, long before the first pharaohs or the first pyramids.
“Lucy” was the name given to an early ancestor of the human species discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia. Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species “Australopithecus afarensis.” There have been hundreds of discoveries of pre-human fossils going back millions of years.
Fossils of the now extinct species of human called Neanderthals have been found in various places in Europe and the Middle East. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago. Fossils of our ancestors, Cro-Magnon men, date back 40,000 years. Archeologists in Oregon have located an ancient trash dump and latrine which was found to contain human DNA linked directly to modern-day Native Americans with Asian roots. The materials found were radiocarbon dated to 14,300 years ago. It is believed that the ancestors of Native Americans came over the land bridge to Alaska around 20,000 years ago.
The universe has been around for about 13.5 billion years, and the earth is over 4 billion years old. They may not believe it at the Creation Museum, but that, my friends, you can take to the bank.
In order to get from Dayton, Ohio, to the Creation Museum out near the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport, one has to drive over bedrock of Ordovician and Silurian rocks that were deposited between about 435 and 445 million years ago. World geography was quite different then. North America straddled the equator and Ohio was located south of the equator. The Ohio River did not exist. From a geological standpoint, the Ohio River is quite young. It was formed on a piecemeal basis beginning between 2.5 and 3 million years ago from north-flowing rivers dammed by the early ice ages.
In late May, 2009, seventy paleontologists took a break from a conference at the University of Cincinnati and drove over Ordovician bedrock to visit the Creation Museum. I’m sure that they were interested in seeing not only the displays at the museum, but also the living fossils of a species that was thought to have become extinct at the time of the European Enlightenment; the irrational, superstitious, religious believers for whom modern science means nothing. Contrary to popular belief, long after the time of Galileo and Columbus this kind of people continued to believe that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Today, they insist that the earth is 6000 years old. They believe this despite the fact that everybody knows that even Dick Clark is more than 6000 years old.
One display at the museum shows two prehistoric children playing while dinosaurs, which became extinct 63 million years before the human species developed, cavort nearby. The scientists visiting the museum were astonished. "I'm speechless," said Derek E.G. Briggs, director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale; "It's rather scary.” Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology, and evolution at University of California, Berkeley, said: “It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?” Lisa Park, a University of Akron professor of paleontology, who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, called it "bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me."
Leaving aside the geological evidence, it doesn’t seem likely that the earth began 6000 years ago. There was already a flourishing civilization in Egypt 6000 years ago. British archaeologists have found 30 sites rich in art chiseled into rocks up to 6,000 years ago in the desert east of the Nile. The rock drawings show cattle, boats, ostriches, giraffes, hippos and the men and women who lived in the area in 4,000 BC, long before the first pharaohs or the first pyramids.
“Lucy” was the name given to an early ancestor of the human species discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia. Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species “Australopithecus afarensis.” There have been hundreds of discoveries of pre-human fossils going back millions of years.
Fossils of the now extinct species of human called Neanderthals have been found in various places in Europe and the Middle East. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago. Fossils of our ancestors, Cro-Magnon men, date back 40,000 years. Archeologists in Oregon have located an ancient trash dump and latrine which was found to contain human DNA linked directly to modern-day Native Americans with Asian roots. The materials found were radiocarbon dated to 14,300 years ago. It is believed that the ancestors of Native Americans came over the land bridge to Alaska around 20,000 years ago.
The universe has been around for about 13.5 billion years, and the earth is over 4 billion years old. They may not believe it at the Creation Museum, but that, my friends, you can take to the bank.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Focus on the facts
I do not usually respond to letters to the editor, but a recent letter by David F. Thigpen of Xenia cried-out for a reply. The letter is also attched as a response to the column "Awash in Evil" as it appears on this blog. Mr. Thigpen criticizes my article, “Awash in Evil,” about James Dobson and “Focus on the Family.” He alleges that I must have “never actually heard or read anything James Dobson or Focus on the Family has produced on the issues.” I had written that Dobson and his group wanted not only to deny gays the right to same-sex marriage, but also other civil rights. Mr. Thigpen wrote: “Dobson has consistently advocated for the protection of civil rights of homosexuals, the same rights we all have. It is only the extra rights that none of us have that he opposes.” This is false.
Contrary to what Mr. Thigpen says, Dobson’s group would deny to gay people not only the right to same-sex marriage, but other important rights available to the rest of us. If you go to the website for Focus on the Family and look at a section written by Mr. Dobson called: “The Christian Response to the Homosexual Agenda,” you will find it seething with hate for homosexuals. Citing Romans 1:24-27, Dobson says: “These and other scriptures clearly reveal that homosexuality is immoral and contrary to God's plan for the human family.” Dobson says: “We believe their (gays’) ideas are dangerous to society at large and to the family in particular.”
Dobson refers to those who are calling for gay rights as “radical homosexual activists.” The truth is that those so-called radical homosexual activists are no more radical than the civil rights activists of the 1960s who were calling for an end to racial segregation. It is haters like Dobson and his group who are trying to paint them as extremists.
Mr. Thigpen would have us believe that Dobson opposes only same-sex marriage. But Dobson believes that gays are not entitled to any protection from employment discrimination. On his website, Dobson said: “Indeed, the Senate in 1996 came within a single vote of passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have wreaked havoc on American culture. This legislation would have made sexual orientation a protected class equivalent to racial minorities under federal civil rights laws.” No doubt Dobson believes that Jesus would approve of employers who harass, humiliate, debase, and discharge employees because of their sexual orientation.
Dobson condemns efforts by gays to “secure the rights to adoption,” and “eliminate restrictions on military service.” It seems to me that the right to adopt is a civil right we all do or should enjoy. The right to stand-up, serve, and die for our country in the military is perhaps one of the most fundamental rights we have. I do not understand how Mr. Thigpen can say that: “Dobson has consistently advocated for the protection of civil rights of homosexuals,” when Dobson calls for denial to gays of the right to serve in the military.
Lt. Col. Victor Ferenbach was an 18-year veteran of the Air Force and an F-15 fighter pilot. He still would be, but the Air Force fired him because he revealed he was gay. He was born at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and grew-up in the Dayton Ohio area. He was Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. He is a war hero. He served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and was awarded nine air medals, including one for heroism during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Despite the fact that other countries have allowed gays in the military without any adverse affect on morale, and despite Col. Ferenbach’s outstanding record of valor, Dobson and his group would applaud the colonel’s firing. I find that disgusting, hateful, and evil.
Note on comment from Mr. Thigpen
David Thigpen says in another letter to the editor and in a comment on this blog, with impeccable logic, that I am wrong to say that Mr. Dobson wants to deny gays rights that we all have, because he, Mr. Thigpen, does not have the right to commit homosexual acts in the military. It reminds me of the logic of the statement by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Comments from a friend:
A friend of mine wrote:
In the letter to the editor the writer says, "Homosexuality is a physical
sex act ...". Such a fundamental mistake points to a fundamental problem
with the letter. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality are 'acts'.
Homosexuality is simply a sexual preference for someone of the same sex, as
is heterosexuality a sexual preference for someone of the opposite sex. One
can be homosexual or heterosexual and never perform or commit a sexual
act.
Contrary to what Mr. Thigpen says, Dobson’s group would deny to gay people not only the right to same-sex marriage, but other important rights available to the rest of us. If you go to the website for Focus on the Family and look at a section written by Mr. Dobson called: “The Christian Response to the Homosexual Agenda,” you will find it seething with hate for homosexuals. Citing Romans 1:24-27, Dobson says: “These and other scriptures clearly reveal that homosexuality is immoral and contrary to God's plan for the human family.” Dobson says: “We believe their (gays’) ideas are dangerous to society at large and to the family in particular.”
Dobson refers to those who are calling for gay rights as “radical homosexual activists.” The truth is that those so-called radical homosexual activists are no more radical than the civil rights activists of the 1960s who were calling for an end to racial segregation. It is haters like Dobson and his group who are trying to paint them as extremists.
Mr. Thigpen would have us believe that Dobson opposes only same-sex marriage. But Dobson believes that gays are not entitled to any protection from employment discrimination. On his website, Dobson said: “Indeed, the Senate in 1996 came within a single vote of passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have wreaked havoc on American culture. This legislation would have made sexual orientation a protected class equivalent to racial minorities under federal civil rights laws.” No doubt Dobson believes that Jesus would approve of employers who harass, humiliate, debase, and discharge employees because of their sexual orientation.
Dobson condemns efforts by gays to “secure the rights to adoption,” and “eliminate restrictions on military service.” It seems to me that the right to adopt is a civil right we all do or should enjoy. The right to stand-up, serve, and die for our country in the military is perhaps one of the most fundamental rights we have. I do not understand how Mr. Thigpen can say that: “Dobson has consistently advocated for the protection of civil rights of homosexuals,” when Dobson calls for denial to gays of the right to serve in the military.
Lt. Col. Victor Ferenbach was an 18-year veteran of the Air Force and an F-15 fighter pilot. He still would be, but the Air Force fired him because he revealed he was gay. He was born at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and grew-up in the Dayton Ohio area. He was Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. He is a war hero. He served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and was awarded nine air medals, including one for heroism during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Despite the fact that other countries have allowed gays in the military without any adverse affect on morale, and despite Col. Ferenbach’s outstanding record of valor, Dobson and his group would applaud the colonel’s firing. I find that disgusting, hateful, and evil.
Note on comment from Mr. Thigpen
David Thigpen says in another letter to the editor and in a comment on this blog, with impeccable logic, that I am wrong to say that Mr. Dobson wants to deny gays rights that we all have, because he, Mr. Thigpen, does not have the right to commit homosexual acts in the military. It reminds me of the logic of the statement by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Comments from a friend:
A friend of mine wrote:
In the letter to the editor the writer says, "Homosexuality is a physical
sex act ...". Such a fundamental mistake points to a fundamental problem
with the letter. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality are 'acts'.
Homosexuality is simply a sexual preference for someone of the same sex, as
is heterosexuality a sexual preference for someone of the opposite sex. One
can be homosexual or heterosexual and never perform or commit a sexual
act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
