Letters: Communist sympathizer?
January 9, 2013 7:50PM
Updated: February 11, 2013 6:08AM
Says Louis Lagger in a recent letter (Nov. 30): “Another one went off today. I’m referring to writers who attack President Obama, calling him a communist, socialist or a Muslim, in letters or OpenLine …” Further down, he gives this advice: “Reading isn’t as easy as listening to the radio and being told what to think. But it is much more rewarding … So, how about it, why don’t you folks get a subscription to ‘The Progressive,’ ‘The Nation’ or ‘The Progressive Populist’ and round out your political views by hearing both sides of the story?”
Well, Louis, I’m not planning on subscribing to any of the above, but I did read an interesting article that confused me, especially in light of what you say in your letter.
Sam Webb wrote it. I’m guessing you know Sam. For those who don’t, he’s the top dog of the organization known as the Communist Party U.S.A.
In this article, he virtually sings the praises of President Obama, and it’s pretty obvious what he thinks of the outcome of this past election.
I’m curious: Why is he so elated? What could he and our president possibly have in common? Or is Sam just blowing smoke, making it sound as though he is thrilled? Then again, he does talk about a lot of “progressive” ideas/and/or/plans he and President Obama apparently are in agreement with.
So, does this prove that President Obama is a commie sympathizer? No, it doesn’t, but it certainly does nothing to convince anyone that he’s not, either; in fact, it strongly suggests commonality.
Fund unmanned fighters
The fiscal cliff — or may I suggest speed bump and down slope — is a much-needed opportunity to get our spending priorities, tax policies and budget in order. It’s time to spend our money on things really needing doing.
For example, the F35 Fighter program should be canceled after a run of 400 planes and the money invested in research, development and production for next-generation unmanned aviation programs.
Unmanned aircraft have many advantages, such as longer mission duration, higher G turns, near instantaneous computerized threat analysis and response and the option of one-way missions, if needed.
The Soviet “bear” is in hibernation and broken up, while China seeks to build up economically. Any worries about a China military buildup could be met with admission of Russia into NATO. A huge U.S. fighter and air tanker buildup for an air superiority campaign over China is misguided and poorly conceived. China is a trading nation needing access to the high seas to import much-needed raw materials such as iron ore, coal, coke, oil, natural gas and export finished products.
In fact, as the world becomes more interdependent economically, war becomes less likely. Look what the Common Market and EU has done for Europe. No sense in sending our brave men and women into battle with second rate F35 hardware. Our military spending should be for a perceived and real threat, not based on just in case something important and unforeseen happens so we’ll need 3,000 F35s.
A next-generation fighter should have a canard for greater maneuverability, twin engines to limp home if one fails, stealth, super cruise and internal weapon stores.