Letters to the editor
75 cents, for what?
So what is it that you want to be now that you are all grown up and dying?
A newsprint nothing, because that’s where most of the real press is going? An AP wire report server — been there, done that? The same continual editorial drumming on big issues of the day scant on true debate and flush with self-congratulatory rhetoric, or a vibrant truly important communication device for a local community?
Let the letter-submitters do your job in the opinion department, and leave us letter-writers off to be the fools we are, fervent with hyperbole and redundancies. Our pent-up emotions, religious, political, financial, or observations of social good, are just our breath on cold glass and the dissipation to vapor, much as we go, one way or the other, to dust and nothing more.
We need to collectively get over ourselves, but that is for another essay and another jackass. Nevertheless, this is no excuse for the 1st Amendment crowd to lie down and not think, but to rethink! Sorry, a bit Orwellian, oh but for drama!
Local newspapers of old got down into the fray, got into the stink, and once in awhile “muckraked.” Screw the national dialogue; we know Congress can’t their heads out of a dark hole, or the international dialogue and that is just one bloody mess, and get down to the local nitty-gritty.
Plenty of the college deflowered youth who imbibed in realms of free-speech, journalism, and writing, otherwise waving in the wheat, will fill the ranks of empty desks, typewriters at the ready, for a mere pittance if and so your printing presses would and will hum again in the tune of Thomas Paine’s great song “The Rights of Man,” or his other earlier hit “Common Sense.” Pour a little bit of Upton Sinclair’s ink into your writing blood! A little dab of Mencken wouldn’t hurt either. To hell with “Eat Local,” write local!
I’ll give your cub reporters a head start with two events having occurred and occurring: the monumental question of fracking and its influence on the environment, and equally the rape of the Valley from continual irrationally planned development and inept local planning departments. Get cracking!
Hurray for the Armel family
The fine write-up on sleigh rides by Matt Armstrong on Dec. 26 was a welcome exchange from bad news that seemed to dominate our papers lately.
We in this area are fortunate to have residents like Betty and Buddy Armel and their family. You can be assured keeping horses today is very time-consuming and expensive. Giving gifts and candy away each holiday season can also stress a budget.
A strong right-hand salute and thank-you to Betty, Buddy, and family.
H. Don Smith
No single solution
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I usually do. But I have an extremely difficult time understanding the logic, or lack of logic I should say, of the comments coming from the rank-and-file ignoramus Winchester Star readers.
Take, for instance, the issue of the Sandy Hook incident. We have individuals talking about “sweeping gun control laws” and others bad-mouthing anyone who wants something done about this type of crime.
There is not a single solution to this problem as is the case with lots of other issues. What we are looking at are not sweeping gun control laws. Nobody is advocating “sweeping” gun control laws and anyone who thinks so is living in a fantasy world created by the National Rifle Association.
What reasonable legislators and citizens want and will get is a total ban on assault weapons. As an advocate of gun ownership, I see nothing unreasonable about banning weapons that are manufactured only for soldiers and the sometimes necessary task of killing people.
They do have their place in our military, but I believe they have no place in our society. If you are a sportsman, by definition a sportsman should not need an assault weapon to kill deer, and I think we all can agree on that.
The other part of the equation is why Hollywood and the video game industry are allowed to market violence and bloodshed. I grew up with “Leave it to Beaver” and “Mr. Ed.” We expose our children to this violent garbage unless we are extremely vigilant about screening what they watch and even then some of it squeezes through. And then, instead of giving our children our time as parents, we buy them things to appease them, because we are “too busy.”
I think if you look at the way things used to be and the way things are now, we, as parents, are also to blame. The is not necessarily a gun problem, but a society problem, and we need to treat it as such in order to begin to address any solutions.
All of the above-mentioned comments by Star readers and many others are indicative of the shortsightedness that exists in our country. It seems to be all part of a larger agenda that is not good for our nation and certainly not good for our children.
Christopher M. Sosnoski
Why all those foreign subsidies?
Want to know how I’d lower the national debt? Probably not — but I’ll tell you anyway.
First, I’d stop or borrow less from China and Japan. Then I’d stop giving all the borrowed money to Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and a dozen or so other countries. This would save many billions of dollars. Probably hundreds of billions. How many other countries donate money to the United States? Name just one.
Doling money that we don’t have to foreign nations seems to be gospel to the cronies we’ve placed in Washington to look out for our, yes, our best interests. Seems they’d rather look out for everyone else’s interests than ours.
Why doesn’t reducing or stopping giveaways to other nations ever enter the argument when talks of debt reduction occur? It’s always Social Security (which has nothing to do with the debt), Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of our safety net that has helped us survive since 1937. Seems to me all our government wants to do is tear down the United States and build up the rest of the world.
I would also stop subsidizing profitable corporations such as Exxon, et al., farmers and any and all other profitable organizations that don’t need our help.
Then I’d close loopholes in the tax code that allows those profitable companies to transfer their funds to banks in tax-free countries. I just read where a company that netted $20 billion transferred $18 billion to foreign banks and paid taxes on $2 billion. Does that make sense? Close the loopholes — collect the tax!
Seems we’re just watching our future disappear as we allow the stupid and the greedy to hold the reins of our once-great nation. Will we ever learn?