Letter: One Robert refutes ‘truthiness’ of two Eds’ recent letters

Editor,

I was enjoying a nice Saturday with the power just coming back on. As I sipped my coffee and perused last week’s newspaper, I noticed the first snowflakes of the year —- coincidentally, both named Ed.

While it’s fair to say we have political differences, I wanted to refute the ‘truthiness’ of their letters.

Ed No. 1 mentioned that Biden will allow “unfettered migration” from the Mexican border. Ed No.1, you will be pleased to know — to the chagrin of most Dems — that Biden’s transition team includes Cecilia Muñoz, the one who supported separating families and who helped Obama earn the nickname “Deporter in Chief.”

Many of your fellow Americans feel that separating families and restricting travel from certain Middle Eastern countries is racist and below the United States, but you should be happy, not sad!

Next, you called the Paris Accord “disastrous.”

The real disasters you should consider are the increased hurricanes, wildfires, droughts and famine we are already seeing with our warming planet.

Any economist will tell you that collective action problems like climate change cannot be solved alone.

We need international agreements if we want any hope at slowing warming.

Instead of saying “voters ignored [Biden’s] cognitive decline,” I suggest you pause and entertain that maybe voters did consider it, but decided that the current administration posed larger risks.

Ed No. 2, you seem like a solid guy I would have a socially distanced beer with, but not as many as you had before writing your letter last week.

You spoke in half-baked, talking points like “Why are there so many … who want to throw away that which the Constitution guarantees to each of us?”

You implied that Obama “denigrated the American way of life for eight years” and that we are “electing the head of a crime family.”

You give no sources to your claims.

Nothing is being taken away from you, Ed No. 2. Go cry into your hoarded toilet paper.

Finally, you incorrectly said that the “very definition of socialism” is “when politicians become unfettered from the law and … rule according to their own personal whim.”

No! Take a high school history class. Socialism is when the community owns the means of production, distribution and exchange.

In reality, regardless of party, let’s remember that all most folks want is affordable healthcare, security and to live on a healthy planet.

Robert Boenish

Clinton

More in Letters to the Editor

Letter: Don’t censor, but sharing Drum letter unnecessary

Editor, I’d like to take a moment to address the letter from… Continue reading

Letter: On loan from God? Should have much better connections

Editor, I certainly can’t claim to be the most buoyant duck in… Continue reading

Letter: WhidbeyHealth CEO is paid more than Biden

Editor, I read the article that described the financial condition of WhidbeyHealth.… Continue reading

Letter: Students fortunate to have Eager as a teacher

Editor, We are writing as parents and community members. We are writing… Continue reading

Letter: Why is ‘narrative’ focused on equity, social justice?

Editor, There are many forms of government — communism, socialism, fascism, democracy,… Continue reading

Letter: Fair Start for Kids Act would give access to early care

Editor, As a mother, I know how essential child care is for… Continue reading

Letter: Article should have included letter in entirety

Editor, This is a note to in regards to Stina Wenzek’s letter… Continue reading

Letter: Teachers do not abrogate their right to free speech

Editor, This is in regard to the citizens’ complaint against a teacher… Continue reading

Letter: Limbaugh may be speaking with God, but long-distance

Editor, What Americans need to remember is that it is democracy, the… Continue reading

Most Read