{{featured_button_text}}

Corbin response

SUE DANIELS

WATERLOO — This letter is in response to Steve Corbin’s April 14 guest column. He erroneously describes “socialism” as “simply stated, taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole.” The many examples of governmental expenditures he included describe more or less good governance in the modern world, depending on what you think of the expenditures themselves. But they do not constitute socialism.

The definition quoted above belongs in the ranks of benign “definitions” we have been subjected to consistently since the 1960s, whose purpose appears to be to make the whole idea of a centrally controlled economy seem palatable to a free people. Spoiler alert: It isn’t.

The Online Oxford English Dictionary defines “socialism” as “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” A careful reading of this definition should raise a few red flags in the minds of people who believe that they, their work, their property, and their freedom belong to them and not to the state. Free people: beware misleading definitions. They signal danger ahead.

Just the facts

EDNA BRUNKHORST

WAVERLY — Although columnist Kathleen Parker stated that she did not hate President Trump, she certainly does seem to castigate him as a selfish monster by writing that he has no empathy, is driven by lust for the material and accuses him of being an outright liar. If she doesn’t hate him, one wonders what she might write about somebody that she does hate.

You have free articles remaining.

Become a Member

She also quotes an unnamed source in her closing the supposedly actual words which the president said which contained the ‘f’ word. One wonders who was in the room to hear exactly what the president actually said to the attorney general about the Mueller appointment.

Since Mr. Mueller was too chicken to say that the investigation was favorable to the president and there was no collusion seems to disappoint Ms. Parker and seemingly the whole Democratic Party.

It would be refreshing if the journalists and especially Kathleen Parker would keep their personal opinions to themselves and just give us the facts such as exactly what “corruption and misery” she read in the redacted version of the Mueller report.

Drinking water

KAMYAR ENSHAYAN

CEDAR FALLS — Reading about Iowa’s contaminated drinking water, I ask where is our outrage, where is our love for our state and its people? Why are the majority of legislators in Iowa so indifferent towards evidence of harm for decades?

I think of pregnant moms drinking that water, the children whose immune system is still developing, girls and boys whose hormonal systems are developing. When we watch the Iowa Girls Basketball State Tournament, we see that it is sponsored by the same complex of agribusiness corporations that actively oppose clean water legislation through purchased political friendship. So it is OK for those girls to drink hormone-disrupting chemicals in their drinking water. Add some 50 million pounds of weed killers applied to Iowa annually, even as many farmers have proven pesticides are not necessary.

In case you have not noticed, Iowa is being taken advantage of and treated like a sacrifice zone, and Iowans for the most part are comfortable with it. Where is the outrage, where is the love?

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
2
0
0
0
0

Load comments