Vindicated
As Oliver Hardy used to tell Stan Laurel: “This is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.”
So the current president said the mounted Border Patrol — who were just doing their jobs — “will pay dearly for what they’ve done. I promise you they will pay.” And he also said the Taliban acted “professional and business-like” while they are hanging innocent victims who Joe Biden left behind or are executing them with a bullet to the head. And Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller is sent to the brig for criticizing military leaders for their dereliction of duty while Gen. Mark Milley goes unpunished for admitting that he would forewarn our biggest military threat, China, of any imminent nuclear strike from the U.S. in advance while Donald Trump was president.
First responders and heroes in 2020 are now losing their jobs because of mask and vaccine mandates while thousands of virus-infected illegal, law-breaking aliens are being dropped off in 23 key locations around the U.S. with zero mandates of safety guidelines for protection of law-abiding citizens and 1.4 million crossings in total are expected by December.
But the biggest change of all is that the term “mothers” will no longer exist because the left has now demanded that “birthing people” is more appropriate and politically correct because men can now have babies in their perverted liberal progressive world.
So that proves that liberal men’s hands have truly become softer and their voices have become higher pitched.
I was right all along.
John Webb
Reubens
Seeking the truth
Since the start of the pandemic, I have been looking at it through the eyes of a community servant, lawyer and scientist. I have responded accordingly, following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s protocols and being vaccinated.
Talking to others, I learned those who distrust public health guidance are good people who trust someone implicitly with their hearts. The trusted person’s “truth” is not questioned.
I am a scientist and critical thinker. I have the degrees, life experience and action to back up this statement. I trust but verify and challenge based on study and logic. I trust the scientific method. With anything new, I expect change. This has been particularly at play with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Simplified, this is the difference in our thinking approach: They trust, believe and don’t critically verify, avoiding conflict as it is not polite.
I apply critical thinking, challenge thinking — including my own— verify, apply scientific method concepts and then expect change.
That is, I trust the process if the scientific method is applied. It is dynamic.
They trust the person and what he says. That is static.
If you are not a scientist and you disagree with scientists about science, it is actually not a disagreement. You’re just wrong.
Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth.
When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.
http://www.zonapediatrica.com/mhdksafa
If you are the one trusted by others, which way do you think?
Thanks for your service.
Eric K. Peterson
Lewiston
Dams are not the problem
As the Associated Press recently reported: “In a normal year, the smokehouses and drying racks that Alaska natives use to prepare salmon to tide them through the winter would be heavy with fish meat, the fruits of a summer spent fishing on the Yukon River like generations before them.
“This year, there are no fish. For the first time in memory, both king and chum salmon have dwindled to almost nothing and the state has banned salmon fishing on the Yukon, even the subsistence harvests that Alaska natives rely on to fill their freezers and pantries for winter. ...
“Opinions on what led to the catastrophe vary, but those studying it generally agree human-caused climate change is playing a role as the river and the Bering Sea warm, altering the food chain in ways that aren’t yet fully understood. ...
“Many believe commercial trawling operations that scoop up wild salmon along with their intended catch, as well as competition from hatchery-raised salmon in the ocean, have compounded global warming’s effects on one of North America’s longest rivers.”
So, if people in Alaska, who do not have to deal with dams, are losing their salmon, why are the lower Snake River dams being blamed for the loss of the salmon.
Kaye Ewing
Orofino
Lie of omission
I read with much interest the Voters Pamphlet concerning Proposition 1 published by the Lewiston city clerk. After reading the argument by John Pernsteiner in support of the current council-manager form of city government, I was left with the feeling that maybe he is unwittingly supporting the No position in opposition to retaining the council-city manager current arrangement.
Here’s why:
Pernsteiner asserted that there would be “increased costs” and that the “mayor would be paid $80,000 per year, plus approximately 40 percent in benefits. ... ”
He also proposed that the mayor “would likely require a city administrator who would receive an advanced salary. ... ”
What Pernsteiner neglected to mention is that the current city manager salary and benefit package is around $214,000 annually. In other words, the city would save $214,000 by not having a city manager.
Folks, this is called the lie of omission. This is like the child who ratted on his brother to his parents but neglected to mention that he instigated the incident in the first place.
Pernsteiner’s lie of omission then opens the door for any intelligent reader to ask: “If he made one glaring false assertion that having an elected mayor would cost the city more money, then what are the other false assertions that he made?”
In my future letters to the editor, readers will see that his arguments for KEEP Lewiston is a house of cards.
Please stay tuned.
Lance Reedy
Lewiston
Keep to the facts
KEEP Lewiston alleges in the Voters Pamphlet that switching to an elected mayor form of government would substantially increase costs because the mayor, who will receive about $120,000 in compensation, “would likely“ hire an administrator at an additional cost. There is no need to hire an administrator because the city already has one, supervised by a city manager, who receives $228,000 in compensation. An elected mayor would save the city more than $100,000 a year.
It then falsely says an elected mayor would require an “extremely expensive” revision of the entire city code.” In fact, the revisions would be modest and could be easily done by the city attorney at no additional cost to the city.
Then KEEP Lewiston outdoes itself by seriously asserting the transition to an elected mayor would “cost the city greatly” without identifying a single cost in money or efficiency. Conclusions are cheap when unencumbered by facts.
The fact is Moscow and every other city in Idaho — but three — make those transitions every time a new mayor is elected and manage just fine at no discernible increase in costs.
KEEP Lewiston keeps telling you what isn’t true or doesn’t tell you what the whole truth requires.
The issues in this election are important and deserve a spirited debate based on the facts. I invite KEEP Lewiston to join me in that endeavor.
John Bradbury
Lewiston
Johnson, not Boots
In response to Danny Radakovich’s Oct. 2 letter, I find myself wondering why he would like Lewiston to stay its present course of stagnation, demise and excessive spending?
I do have to agree with him on one point — that being there is little information on Wilson Boots, who is spending by far the most on the campaign of all his rivals — yes, rivals.
There are more candidates running than just Boots.
Dan Johnson is off to a slower start, but seems to be playing the slow, steady game. Johnson is well versed with the city bureaucracy, having served on various commissions and has led the Solid Waste Department, where he saved taxpayer dollars and returned them to a savings fund. ...
Voting citizens are better off getting their information from someone in the know like Dan Johnson, who is running for mayor.
Ken Jacks
Lewiston
Hell to pay
I just read an article in “The Desert Review” by Justus Hope, M.D.
Unfortunately, at this stage of my life, I am at a loss on whose science and whose news to trust. But this is interesting.
In May 2021, the state of Uttar Prashes in India (population 230 million), had a peak of the Indian delta surge.
Twenty-five percent of the population have had one dose of the vaccine, while less than 5 percent are fully vaccinated. Government teams moved across 97,941 villages in 75 districts during five days to give aggressive house-to-house tests and treatment programs with medicine kits.
Those who tested positive for COVID-19 were isolated and given a medicine kit. Five weeks later, new cases dropped by 97.1 percent.
There was also a decline in active cases by the same 97.1 percent.
Three weeks later, cases were down 99 percent. There were many days that zero COVID-19 deaths were reported.
On Sept. 12, the entire state recorded 14 new cases.
So, what was the magic medicine in each of the kits distributed? Tylenol, multivitamin, zinc, vitamin D3, ivermectin and doxycycline.
How much did each medicine kit cost? Two dollars and sixty-five cents.
Where did these medicine kits come from? From the U.S. government.
Fake news? If it’s not, there should be hell to pay.
John Fazzari
Clarkston
Check Gish’s address
How can we take the motives of the strong mayor campaign seriously when their leader and spokesperson, Joe Gish, doesn’t live in the city?
How’s that for transparency?
I’m voting yes to keep a professional and accountable Lewiston government, not one that will hand out favors.
Amanda Gill
Lewiston
