Letters to the Editor: Dec. 27, 2024

Alternate facts

I was having a conversation with an office mate last week when I violated one of the third-rail rules: Never talk religion or politics at the office.

I waded in because I thought we could have a rational conversation about the incoming president’s appointments to run important offices, such as Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence and Robert Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services.

I argued that while I may have policy differences, the incoming administration has a right to appoint folks sharing its policy agenda, as long as they’re qualified. However, I also indicated concern over Gabbard and Kennedy for roles important to our nation’s security.

Gabbard is a Russian sympathizer and opportunist. She’s not a serious person, but is being promoted for a serious job.

Anyone who doesn’t understand that Russia and China are not our friends is problematic. And Kennedy’s lack of respect for the science of vaccines speaks for itself.

But that’s not what caused me to write. The trigger was our inability to discuss this without descending into talking points.

Instead of considering the merits, my office mate wanted to talk about Democrats allegedly waging “lawfare” against Trump and the Bidens supposedly soliciting $5 million in bribes from a Ukrainian company.

The FBI informant originating the bribes story was discredited last week, after pleading guilty last week to fabricating the story, and is now in prison. But no matter, my office mate insisted, because the Bidens and Hillary Clinton perpetrated the Russian election tampering “hoax.”

Using this kind of language makes a serious discussion impossible. When intelligent people take unsubstantiated propaganda and doublespeak from politicians and infotainment enablers without examination, we are in trouble as a nation.

Assertions are not fact. Actual criminal convictions carry weight.

John Linder

McMinnville

Clowns on all sides

Nearly half of voters are disappointed with the results of the presidential election, striking me as hypocritical.

Why all the pearl-clutching about “preserving democracy” anyway? After all, the candidate receiving the most votes won.

I say let’s wait for the results before judging — especially now that the president’s picks for critical agencies seem so top-notch.

For example, there’s Pete Hegseth.

He’s accused of sexual misconduct and financial mismanagement, all consistent with the standards of the incoming administration. He also rails against diversity, which makes him an excellent choice to head the Department of Defense, arguably the most diverse organization in America.

And then there’s RFK Jr., nominated to lead Health and Human Services. A perfect choice, as he believes inoculations cause autism and has compared federal vaccination programs to the Holocaust.

Seventy-seven Nobel laureates from the fields of medicine, physics, chemistry and economics urged the Senate to reject Kennedy’s bid. That in itself qualifies him as another spot-on selection.

And finally — for now, at least — we have Kash Patel, nominated for FBI Director.

John Bolton, who knew of Patel’s work at the National Security Council, called him “manifestly unqualified.” Patel’s former supervisor, Charles Kupperman, said, “He’s untrustworthy. ... It’s an absolute disgrace to American citizens to even consider an individual of this nature.”

The hardly liberal Bill Barr complained that Patel had “virtually no experience that would qualify him to serve at the highest level of the world’s preeminent law enforcement agency,” leading him to conclude, “The very idea of moving Patel into a role like this shows a shocking detachment from reality.”

Yeah, Bill. Whatever.

As for me, I’m viewing the next four years with all the excitement of the circus coming to town. Sadly, there’ll be no lions or elephants, though, just a bunch of clowns.

Steve Long

McMinnville