Lettrs to the Editor, Sept. 27, 2009Written by Administrator | | firstname.lastname@example.org
TO THE EDITOR,
When Don Burnard’s “The Hot Corner” column first appeared, I applauded your efforts at covering all sides. Burnard began by stating he was neither a writer nor a journalist. He has gone to great lengths to prove both those statements.
His Sept. 20 column, “No tea, thanks,” is appalling as an opinion piece of writing and as a piece of political journalism. He starts out immediately disparaging “Tea Party” attendees — in this case I think he is referring to 9/12’ers — as running around on lobbyist-paid-for buses. No facts, no figures as to what proportion this may have been. The people I know who attended a 9/12 event locally or in Washington D.C., all paid their own way.
He next contends the middle class and senior citizens would be the most harmed. Having attended at least five tea parties, the vast majority of attendees have been seniors and middle-class citizens. Most all have been very well read, informed and in touch with what is happening to our republic. I have yet to see Burnard at a tea party event. I encourage him to attend and meet these people he hopes to save. The Children of Liberty and the Libertarian Party of Ohio (of which I am an active member) have regular meet ups (NorthwestOhioMeetup.com).
Burnard uses the weak tactic of name-calling rather than facts, using buzzwords aimed at fellow Toledoans who have the audacity to disagree with his politics.
The one “fact” Burnard does expound on is a definition of fascism by Robert Paxton. No mention of Paxton’s credentials or association. Still, I would like to repeat a portion of that definition according to Paxton. “… a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.” That is an exact description of ACORN, SEIU, the TIDES Foundation, et. al.
I appreciate your desire to give a voice to all sides and to aim for impartiality. In regards to all your columnists and Burnard especially, please seek writers of at least some talent, and with at least a tip of the hat to journalistic integrity. Otherwise, there will be little difference between Toledo Free Press and The Blade.
KEN SHARP, Toledo
TO THE EDITOR,
I just want to drop Don Burnard a note and let him know how much I agree with and appreciate his Hot Corner article, “No tea, thanks.”
I absolutely refuse to listen to anything WSPD radio broadcasts anymore. I will not even listen to the news, weather and traffic any longer. Everything they say is anti-Obama. Between Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity, it is my belief that they are actually destroying this country with their hate mongering. They want to see the president fail and are doing their best to make sure that it happens. What absolutely terrifies me is how many supposedly intelligent people believe the hatred and garbage they spew.
Thank you for being a voice of reason in this mess and for allowing me to vent. I had about given up any hope there was any voice of sanity left in this world.
DIANA IRWIN, Toledo
TO THE EDITOR,
Says he is sick of the so-called “tea baggers;”
Describes Rush, Glenn and Sean as loons who “make up outrageous lies and scare tactics;”
States that the tea baggers are “trying to convince people that they speak for the majority of Americans.” (Note: If Mr. Burnard is referring to the tea bagger’s opposition to the government takeover of the health care system, all the polls show that they (the tea baggers) do “speak for the majority of Americans;”)
n Describes the people who don’t agree with him as “these racist xenophobic cretins who love to preach about how Obama is leading us down the path of socialism” and further “that 99 percent of them (the tea baggers) couldn’t give you a rational description of what constitutes socialism, fascism or even Nazism;”
Feels that the people with whom he doesn’t agree “should read up on the subjects that are being thrown around with virtually no context whatsoever;”
n States that “if good Ol’ Joe (Wilson) read the bills, assuming he can read, he would have noticed that both the House and Senate versions exclude illegal’s from coverage;”
Believes that “the Republican party has become a party of radical fringe elements, who think the fact that a black man becoming president of the United States is a direct attack on their manhood;”
Describes the tea baggers as Brown Shirts who “have no respect for the country, the office of the presidency, the Constitution, or any of the Founding Fathers’ vision of what this country should be.”
In my opinion, the tone of this piece is nasty, arrogant, elitist and condescending, additionally this piece has no substance. There is a lot of name calling directed at anyone with whom Burnard disagrees with virtually no context whatsoever.
No one with whom Burnard disagrees (99 percent of them) reads, understands basic definitions or understands the Constitution or the intentions of our Founding Fathers, but of course Burnard does!
Burnard can read because he implies that he read the health care bill and then goes on to note that illegals were excluded from the health care bill; however, he missed the entire point of the controversy. If no one is required to prove citizenship to get government health care, what would stop illegals from signing up? Has Burnard noticed that the often repeated 46 million uninsured has suddenly become 30 million uninsured? Was President Obama lying? What do you think?
Why are Rush, Glenn and Sean loons? What are the outrageous lies and scare tactics referred to? Are we being led “down the path of socialism?” Why are the tea baggers protesting? Do all the females in the Senate or the House feel a “direct attack on their manhood?” (Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.) Why does Burnard call the tea baggers racists?
This piece contains no substance and is nothing more than a hateful, snotty rant, but I believe in the Constitution and the First Amendment — therefore if Burnard chooses to make a fool of himself, so be it.
MAREK MOLDAWSKY, Toledo
How about proof?
TO THE EDITOR,
I started to read Don Burnard’s column on “No tea, thanks,” got through about a paragraph and told my wife I didn’t need to read any further. She suggested to read the whole thing to see if he has any evidence to support what he is saying about lobbyists riding buses, etc., especially since I know many who have attended and none are paid, but are there just because of their beliefs.
So, I would like to see an article with proof. I would also like to see an article where Burnard just writes without name-calling. Take out all the adjectives (I’ll use a nice word) that you use to describe Republicans or anyone with a different viewpoint than yours, and see how much column you actually have, and this includes your description of fascism as you just used someone’s definition, not Webster.
RON PIDCOCK, Toledo
Counterpoint to reality
TO THE EDITOR,
I have just finished reading Don Burnard’s Sept. 20 piece and have found new energy from it. Burnard takes to task a group of favorites of mine in the form of what he and the salacious in our midst refer to “tea baggers.” I’ll not here go into the meaning of this lascivious twist of terms that is used by those exacerbated by the tea party-goers. As is typical of the Burnard types, they first move to demonize any opponents without a thread of evidence to support their position.
He then moves on to use as evidence, a book written by a one-topic historian, Robert Paxton, to support his contention that this country is not moving to fascism as the tea party-goers sometimes proclaim to support their fear of the general direction in which this country is moving. Burnard did not wish in his column to “outline them (the five steps that take place for fascism to gain control) in a column of this size.” This could be because he may not have read far enough into “Vichy France; Old Guard and New Order” to find that Robert Paxton states the very thing that has the tea party-goers so agitated; “a general abandonment of democratic liberties”. Ironically, his evidence supports the very position the “tea baggers” take.
I have the feeling that Toledo Free Press provides space to Burnard and his point of view as counterpoint to the reality that is taking place around us.
DON LYDEY, Maumee
TO THE EDITOR,
I understand that a reputable newspaper has a responsibility to present a well-rounded view of the issues of the day. Toledo Free Press is doing a nice job in that regard.
Having said that, I am extremely offended by Don Burnard’s Sept. 20 column, “No tea, thanks.”
The daily local paper trots out a weekly columnist named Marilou Johanek who resorts to invective and name calling in lieu of making rational arguments. I would have hoped that you folks would be above that.
But here comes Burnard calling people who have reasoned opinions like mine “loons, sore losers, racist xenophobic cretins, Brown Shirts, and dupes.”
I am none of the above. I am a 60 year-old clear-thinking college instructor.
Burnard should be terminated from your newspaper. And please pass this along to him, hopefully on his way out the door.
JERRY NOSS, Whitehouse
TO THE EDITOR,
Don Burnard is a typical arrogant liberal who thinks he knows all the answers and us common folks don’t know anything. He is so wrong!
We are not mind-numbed robots who follow the marching orders of some special interest group or talk radio or cable news. We watch cable news and talk radio to hear what is really going on in our country, since mainstream media will only tell us what they think we should know or what they think is important. Would they have ever told us about acknowledged communist Van Jones, or the corrupt ACORN organization?
He totally lacks an understanding about the tea parties and the Sept. 12 rally in Washington. Most of those people came in their own vehicles at their own expense. He also doesn’t realize that for every person in Washington that day, there are 100 persons who would have liked to have been there.
We the people are very concerned about the direction our country is taking, concerned about the America our children and grandchildren will someday inherit, and especially the horrendous debt they will inherit.
1. We are concerned about big government getting bigger, having more control over our lives!
2. We do not like our Congress spending money we don’t have for programs we don’t need!
3. We object to Congress passing laws written by special interest groups, and never read by most of them!
4. We are not racist because we object to the socialist agenda this current administration in Washington is promoting.
5. We do not want more laws that will further harm employment in this country and raise more (hidden) taxes!
6. We object to health care legislation which will further the leftist liberal agenda, but not answer the health needs of Americans.
It can be done right, but not their way. For instance: Where is tort reform? Some of us common folks do understand what socialism means, and we see it coming every day from this bunch in Washington.
When Burnard speaks of lies and distortions, he needs to look at his own leftist, liberal friends in the media. They do their best to not tell us the truth! Thankfully, we have talk radio and cable news to tell us what the mainstream media won’t.
GENE REEBEL, Temperance, Mich.
Irony in chastising
TO THE EDITOR,
Thank you so much, Don Burnard, for your Sept. 20 article, “No tea, thanks.” I was very enlightened to learn that I, along with every car in my packed hotel parking lot alone, should be able to apply for reimbursement of our expenses by some lobbyist. Please provide me that information as soon as possible.
Your name-calling is also well received, but I will decline a counter attack because I don’t know you and that would be inexcusable. I do feel the need, however, to point out the irony in your chastising of Senator Joe Wilson. With that being said, as soon as I figure out this lobbyist group and also have them pay for dinner, perhaps you and I could meet. That way we could come to some conclusions on what to call each other.
I can see how watching people sing The National Anthem or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or chant “USA” can prove our disrespect for the country, the presidency, the constitution and our founding fathers. I am not certain if you attended the September 12 March on Washington for your research, but I did. I can assure you that I witnessed no acts of violence that the brown shirts would have condoned.
As for your short comment on President Obama’s speech to schoolchildren, it wasn’t about the speech. If you didn’t bother to research this issue then, you certainly won’t care to hear about it from me now.
I would also like to comment on Rep. Wilson’s inappropriate outburst – it was inappropriate. However, is it just the fact that two words were spoken that makes it more despicable than the boos that both President Clinton and President Bush endured? When you get the issue of illegal immigration, I conclude that both President Obama and Representative Wilson are correct. There are laws in this country, as there should be, that prevents denying medical attention to anyone. Would you have an illegal immigrant turned away? I wouldn’t want this and my guess is neither would you. It is obvious that both sides recognize that illegal immigration does create a problem in our current healthcare system. To me, it makes more sense to address illegal immigration before we tackle healthcare reform.
Everyone that I spoke with during the weekend of Sept. 12 agrees that healthcare must be reformed. Those of us that read the bills see major flaws in the pending legislation. One issue that bothers me is that yes, you can keep your existing insurance. Unfortunately, section 102 in HR3200 that was previously titled “Limitation on New Enrollment” now titled “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage”, that prevents you from switching to anything except public option. They may have changed the name of the section, but the wording is the same. I also don’t see how mandating my sister to purchase an insurance policy helps her situation. If she can’t even afford a catastrophic policy today, how does mandating it improve her budget?
Disagreeing with polices or how policies should be implemented, does not make me a racist. I found myself at odds (bank bailout just to name one) with President Bush also. What did it make me then? President Obama doesn’t even agree with your on this issue of racism.
DORI WISNIEWSKI, Toledo
TO THE EDITOR,
With all due respect, Don Burnard, you sound like a desperate liberal who has to resort to name-calling because you are losing the argument. As far as you referring to us conservatives as Nazis, I’d just like to confront you with a few facts. Did you know that 1) the Nazis were the National Socialist Party. 2) the Nazi’s took control of industry. 3) The Nazis were also for Universal Health Care. 4) the Nazis were for guaranteed jobs. 5) the Nazis took away guns. 6) the Nazis were into Eugenics,or the creation of a master race, which is the real source of the abortion rights movement in this country.
Don’t believe this? I would suggest you do some research on what Margeret Sanger believed. She spoke at KKK rallies. (Yes I believe killing babies in the womb is evil. If that makes me a hate-monger than so be it). 7) Have you ever stopped to think that it is mostly conservatives in this country that support the right of Israel (a Jewish state) to exist (very unNazi like of us, don’t you think? No, I’m not implying that you liberals are Nazis, just pointing out a few facts.
I also wonder, if you were as offended at all of the name-calling of President Bush by liberals for the previous eight years. He was called a bunch of names that I will not repeat. I thought you liberals were all about love and tolerance. I also listened to you all say you had a right to disagree with the former President, which, by the way I also disagreed with Bush on many issues. Do you really believe in freedom of speech? Or do you just believe in the right of liberals to express their point of view? Now that your guy is in all of a sudden it is now unpatriotic to disagree with the President? Give me a break! Well, I’m sure you are a nice guy and I for one would defend your right to disagree with us. Have a blessed day!
JEFFREY DUNN, Toledo
Tags: Don Burnard