To the editor:
Dang! Just when I thought Mr. Stefan Schemine and I had found some way to come together with our points of view, he had to go complicate things by once again blaming the world’s problems on “progressive government.” In his Jan. 14 letter (“Do you desire government dictate your every move?”), Mr. Schemine acknowledges that he agrees with my explanation of how our country has come to face the threat of terrorism. He observes further that President Eisenhower was correct in warning us about the military-industrial complex, something I also agree with. He was further on target in citing our interest in Middle East oil as an excuse to go to war. So far, so good. Both he and I are on the same page in understanding how we’ve gotten to this point in history.
But then Mr. Schemine goes on to lay the blame for the corporate greed that has resulted in our global military expansion on “progressive government.” It will come as no surprise to regular readers of Mr. Schemine’s letters that anything he eschews both politically and/or socially gets labeled as a “progressive” trend that will lead the United States into a “one-world government.” That there is no proof of the existence of such a trend seems not to matter to him at all. In Mr. Schemine’s view, we are steadily advancing toward a global dictatorship under which we will lose our right to vote, be unable to improve our lives in the way we may wish, and to have the government dictate our every move.
His tendency to read nefarious conspiracies into everything he disagrees with often clouds any valid remarks he does offer. So, while I applaud his willingness to speak his mind, I have to continue to disagree with his often over-the-top conclusions about what he is observing in our daily lives. I simply don’t feel his accusations are particularly helpful in bettering either our community or our nation.
While I doubt that Mr. Schemine needs my encouragement to keep on offering his opinions, I want to assure him (and others) that I do enjoy and welcome an informed exchange of ideas on most topics. I want to stress, however, that my emphasis is on “informed.” I have in the past, and will in the future, continue to speak out against fear-based and uninformed hypotheses concerning social justice issues, and I will continue to condemn and label prejudice and discrimination when it is proffered by anyone as an alternative to common decency.