Scapegoating easy; solutions not
The monthly letters of Kathleen Bollinger and Ron Raymond have in common a strong-felt need to exercise their First Amendment right to freely speak their minds and that's great. But they also have in common an obsessive need for scapegoating.
Their broken-record themes, however, have escalated to the point of incredulity.
Bollinger, in her most recent missive (“Answers,” Aug. 5) blasts President Obama (again) for causing and hiding virtually every “scandal” including Benghazi (again), but also endorses strongly waterboarding torture as a method of securing answers. That's both immoral and un-American.
Ron Raymond tirelessly advocates the Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman economic philosophies and constantly faults President Obama for failure to understand and exercise this retrograde thinking. He is usually incisive and gently articulate, but his recent letter (“Not corporate deserters II,” Aug. 13) goes over the top. In a very duplicitous question, he cleverly blames his scapegoat, the “politically attractive but grossly inexperienced” Obama, for virtually all the major recent national and international problems in the news.
We live in troublesome times and as a nation, we must deal with problems of great complexity. Expressions of concern and fair judgment — as well as analysis of individuals and events — are inevitable and at times even helpful.
Constant scapegoating, however, is not uplifting and becomes tiresome. It is more taxing and productive to offer positive ideas and solutions.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More answers, please
- Positive & healthy ...
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Muslims & discrimination
- Mitochondrial disease awareness