Letters Nov. 19, 2020

Fearing anti-democracy

Hello Trumpers,

You accused some of us of being scared, or afraid. We were. But we weren’t afraid of your grotesque flag displays. We weren’t afraid of signs you put on your trucks saying, “F-- your Feelings!” or your “rolling coal” diesel pickups. We weren’t afraid of the guns you carried everywhere, like pacifiers. We weren’t afraid of your belligerence or bullying.

What we were afraid of was that you might unravel our democracy. We were afraid you’d blindly force us into religious dictatorship, like our ancestors fled Europe to avoid. Or fled Russia, East Germany, China, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, or a dozen other oppressed countries.

We were afraid when your leader violated our Constitution, breaking our laws, often just to break them, while simultaneously demanding “law and order.” We were afraid when we lacked legal power to stop him, and you didn’t, yet like a bad parent did nothing to correct him. In fact, you claimed seeing nothing wrong, no matter how damaging, insulting, or egregious. Children in cages?

I’d ask you what your leader would have to do for you to say, “You’ve gone too far.” And I was afraid when none of you could give a coherent answer.

I call him “your leader” because that’s what he said. I’m not a Republican, so he considered me his enemy. Yet all three of my brothers, and myself, served our country even though we were all anti-war.

Were we “fools” and “suckers,” defending Republicans? Maybe.

Our next step should be forward. We aren’t each other’s enemy. We have a common enemy (we just have to see it for what it is; it’s identity surprising to most).

Us never-trumpers have spent 4 years trying to understand trumpers. Now, if they’re our equal, they need to spend 4 years trying to understand us.

A. Martin
Merrifield, Minnesota

Climate change – controversial?

I am encouraged that climate change was an issue in this last election. And I appreciated US Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett’s statement that climate change is a controversial issue.

It’s controversial that there were 16 U.S. climate disasters in U.S. in the first 9 months of this year whose losses exceeded a billion dollars. These 16 events resulted in the deaths of 188 people and had significant economic effects on the areas impacted.

Yet many leaders (but not most of the public) don’t want to believe the science that clearly shows this increase in natural disasters are a result of climate change, so our country left the Paris Climate Accord and eliminated regulations that would have reduced carbon emissions.

It’s controversial that the U.S. continues to subsidize the fossil fuel industry directly and indirectly, but our individual ability to receive tax incentives for renewable energy infrastructure, such a solar or wind, decreased this year and will be gone after next year.

I think it’s controversial that many of our national leaders don’t seem to care that we are leaving our children and grandchildren to pay the price of climate change.

I have hope, though, that our citizens will push for action to reduce carbon emissions at all levels of government. I hope for incentives that will grow our renewable energy industry and allow us to significantly reduce fossil fuel use.

I have hope we will think about our grandchildren and make sacrifices ourselves to reduce their risks of facing a looming climate crisis.

Pam Dryer
Mason, Wisconsin

Applauding Kohls

I applaud Dr. Kohls for his courage in stating what millions of doctors worldwide know and agree with. I will add two points: the WHO lab produced a positive PCR test for a chicken and a papaya. and second, the placebo used by Pfizer was not a true placebo, which should have been a saline solution. It was a meningitis vaccine, also known to produce serious health effects on patients. Data has already proven the truth about the PCR tests, the low Infection Fatality Rate of the Covid-19 virus, and the antibody tests. Now that we have the data, Dr. Kohls’ statements are fully corroborated and Mr. Bernhardt’s vacuous arguments (Letters, Nov. 12) have been proven to be wholly without merit.

Lila York
New York City