Sounding off: It’s getting harder to determine truth, reality | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Sounding off: It’s getting harder to determine truth, reality

1525769_web1_ptr-weeklyletters

A wise man once said, “Our problems are many, while our solutions are few.” I think a wise man said it? Or did I just make that up? Truthfully, I’m not sure. I’ve read and viewed so much on TV, social media, newspapers, books and magazines, etc., over the past few years, I can’t remember.

It made me realize with all this media (slanted and otherwise), it’s hard to keep track of truth or reality. Don’t expect it to get much easier in the future. You think you know something as fact but, do you really?

Technology is already out there that allows anyone (criminals, terrorists, the media, government and other undesirables) to create (or re-create) photos, recordings, videos, etc., to appear exactly as the originals. This tech is so accurate it can fool the best of science or law enforcement, and thus, more easily, the citizenry.

What are we to do? Believe everything, believe nothing or sit back and absorb whatever version of truth you like best. Take in only what fits our preconceived beliefs or, take in everything and sift through the muddled web of (mis)information and find the real truth. Most will chose the easiest. Or will they?

A popular song lyric says, “Reality it seems is just a dream”

At least I think it does … or did I just make that up? Oh well, believe whatever you want. It really doesn’t matter.

Tim Kaczmarek, Natrona Heights


Politicians should work for a living

I’m so tired of them. You know the ones, living off of our hard-earned money while we do actual work day in and day out. They get to ride around in big new cars with smartphones and unlimited data plans while we drive to work in thousand-dollar cars just waiting for the alternator or some other thing to go so we can put it on an overextended credit card. They buy nice shoes with our tax dollars while the steel in my steel toes is coming through the leather.

And another thing. You better believe they don’t have to submit to drug tests like we all do.

What’s wrong with that picture? It’s like the harder we work, the less money we have. All the while, they get started on our dime and seem to get richer and richer. We have this whole lazy class of people who really don’t bring any value to the table. Enough is enough.

Isn’t it time our politicians actually get to work for a living?

Wilson Kondrich, Swisshelm Park


Irony of blacks’ mistrust of police

In watching the honoring of Pittsburgh Police Officer Calvin Hall, I was struck by the irony of it all.

Here was a policeman, an African-American, so very well respected by his colleagues both black and white and his superiors. Earlier on there were words of respect from Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who was Braddock’s mayor when Hall served that city.

And yet, so very many black communities throughout our country have a strong mistrust of police, the thousands of decent cops smeared by the actions of so very, very few. Sad.

There are four distinct careers that, if one doesn’t honestly care about people, he/she does not belong in: medicine, law enforcement (including firefighting), teaching and the ministry.

As an African-American man, I believe many in our black communities are guilty of the one thing they decry: stereotyping. Hall was a genuine credit to both his race and his profession.

George O. West, Ligonier


Free speech on all sides

In reference to Glenn Plummer’s letter “Next steps for Trump supporters,” I have a few questions and an observation.

The first question is, why on earth is he so angry? I shouldn’t have to point out that we live in a representative republic, and as such, every once in a while both sides have to endure presidential policies with which there is disagreement.

The second question is, why would he, as an apparent Democrat, utilize a reference to lynching? A quick internet search would have revealed the fact that for over a century southern Democratic senators blocked every attempt to make the deplorable act of lynching a federal crime. It was finally accomplished last year, so his reference to “String ‘Em Up” in reference to President Trump’s supporters is vulgar and odd.

Finally, my observation: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution assures the right of free speech to all Americans. The liberal protesters who repeatedly interrupted the Senate confirmation hearings for the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh with their foul-mouthed taunts had the same right as the North Carolinians do to free expression — even if you didn’t like it, Mr. Plummer.

Walt Komoroski, Unity


Using race to promote ideology

I’d like to dissect Steven Ignatz’s letter “We shouldn’t tolerate ‘the Squad’”. First, a physics lesson: Neither white nor black are colors, because they do not have specific wavelengths. A color is visible light with a specific wavelength.

Now that we have gotten the science part of this response out of the way, let’s address the political aspect of Ignatz’s letter. He contends that the so-called “Squad” use their color to promote racism. I guess the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazi party and other current white supremacist groups don’t use race to promote their ideology? If you need any further proof of these groups promoting hate, see El Paso, Texas, Aug. 3, for details.

Ignatz is right about one thing: Three members of the “Squad” of four should go back to the country were they were born — the United States. I don’t recall people such as Ignatz and others of his political persuasion calling for right-wing ideologues’ criticizing President Obama to go back to where they came from.

I am proud to be an American, where we can disagree and not be persecuted for our beliefs. But I guess some political viewpoints don’t really believe in the First Amendment of our Constitution unless it suits them.

Daniel Bernstein, Greensburg


We want action on guns

Another day, another mass shooting, another NRA anthem: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

If this was a virus that was killing people every day, the federal government would use all means at its disposal to stop and eradicate the virus. Could this be the time when the U.S. Congress and president summon some intestinal fortitude to ban assault-style weapons that are capable of massacring 20 citizens in a matter of seconds?

If past reactions of prayers and sympathies, with little action, are the usual norm, I guess not. For the safety of our children and grandchildren and all of us, let’s start shouting from the byways and hilltops: We want action from the U.S.Congress and president — now.

Richard P. Davis, Saltlick


Many veterans support Trump

I have a few comments and corrections on Carl Mochak’s letter “Disagreeing with Trump supporters.”

First off, who do you think you are? You are telling all veterans who support our president that we should be ashamed of ourselves and we should realize everything we fought for means nothing? I am sorry, but I believe that was when President Obama was decimating our military and drawing a line in the sand that he didn’t have the fortitude to back up.

So I’m feeling you’re kind of like one of those snowflakes — you can’t get over Hillary Clinton losing. Our president has done nothing but help to build our military up. For you to say anyone who supports our president is wrong and you’re glad most people in America do not feel the way Trump supporters do, well, that’s just plain wrong.

That is exactly why we elected him as our president. It wasn’t the people who didn’t like him that elected him; it was the people who do like him and like his policies.

I will never, ever be ashamed that I served 10 years in the military and two tours in Vietnam. You, however, sound like you are another hate-filled Democrat who can’t get over Hillary’s loss and Obama’s departure. Maybe you should find out what the facts are before you run your mouth.

Bob Serena, Vandergrift

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.