As I read Mr. Horstmann's response to my letters of Jan.14 and 16 I found it difficult to discover a clear thread.
If I can, I will clarify what Mr. Horstmann misunderstood. Living life with the intention to improve our world may seem utopian, but where is the error or foolishness in that? Yes, there must be winners and losers in the political process. The pendulum swings. Debate continues but the great things we have done have been done by some kind of consensus. Cooperation and compromise are not contrary to producing positive results.
Questioning how much I am willing to surrender to achieve some semblance of a more perfect world poses a useless choice. Who wouldn't sacrifice time, effort or a resource of choice to solve a problem?
Remember the power of John Kennedy's dictum that man is both responsible for and capable of solving his problems. The common good is education, economic opportunity based on talent, protection in our homes, simple things like clean air, clean water, the ability to expect a living and fair wage in a safe working environment, the expectation that the products we purchase will not directly harm us. This is the common good.
I would think the only issue is the method of accomplishment. If the goal is worthy, the effort should be conducted with good will.
As for stifling debate, no such premise was offered in either publication on Jan. 14 or 16. I do not assign direct blame now nor did I then. I said and will repeat that there must be thousands of psychologically damaged souls under the radar among 300,000,000 Americans.
To think this is irrelevant or inconsequential one only requires reading a paper on practically any given day. The story repeats. Telling angry and fearful Americans "...Second Amendment remedies may be necessary," "... if ballots don't work, bullets will..." and as Glen Beck recently pontificated, "...be read y to shoot them [sic liberals] in the head before they shoot you..." ar e threats of such intensity that they have no place in our political discourse.
This has nothing to do with our country being destroyed, with our freedom to believe as we wish and even less to do with political correctness.
This is about us being able to debate an issue based on facts not spin, truth not smear and accuracy not talking points without begging that someone die.