Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:00 am
Memorial Day tributes should be for vets only
There are three days out of 365 each year that are set aside to honor members of the military. Two of them are Armed Forces Day, which honors those currently serving the country, and Veterans Day, where anyone who served honorably is remembered. Memorial Day is a day when the United States takes a moment to honor our military dead, specifically those who died while on active duty. Over the years, it has included veterans of all branches whether they died in service or after they left the military.
I commend The Journal Gazette for including a remembrance page in the Memorial Day edition, but I'm also disappointed. More than a third of the purchased ads for family members mentioned nothing about service to our country. Yes, remembering grandparents, parents and siblings is a fine and admirable thing, but why are these included with tributes for deceased military people, both those who died in service and veterans?
I cannot blame these people for wanting to remember their relatives. But the revenue from these ads should not be more important than the “Salute to sacrifice” editorial on Page 8A. Next year, I suggest you honor those who served our country instead of making an extra buck from people who are unaware of the meaning of the day. If people want memorials printed on this day, then, please, put them in a section separate from the salute to deceased military personnel.
Patricia G. Stahlhut
Doctors' aims worthwhile
We applaud Todd Rumsey and his group of 10 physicians for their persistence in seeking the sale of Lutheran Health Network from Community Health Systems. Our health has always been their aim, privately and now publicly.
Dick and Adie Baach
Diversity of viewpoints part of America's greatness
Since the start of the 2016 presidential campaign, the country has engaged in a political debate of a magnitude not seen in many generations. The 2016 election was one of the nastiest, dirtiest and most personal election cycles this country has ever seen.
The mannerisms of the candidates were of the sort that pitted citizen against citizen on a level that was different than simply ideological; it pitted citizens against one another on a much more personal level. This type of division was damaging to the way we conduct ourselves in elections and how we discuss important issues.
The 2016 election also led to a further decaying of civility among our people and in the way we conduct political arguments. At the presidential debates, for instance, civility and politeness were checked at the door and thoroughly removed. Donald Trump might come to mind when divisive tactics are discussed, but one cannot overlook the fact that Hillary Clinton was guilty of making demoralizing comments toward Trump and his many supporters. The toxicity of politics also intensified in the election cycle, and no effort has been made to heal the division.
President Trump promised to heal the division, but perhaps he is not the proper person to do so. His views and his mannerisms make people angry and anxious. Some of these concerns have merit and others are pure hysteria.
The way the president attacks Republicans and Democrats alike, either in person or over Twitter, is damaging to our political process. Although he was bestowed with the most powerful office on the planet, he must comprehend the enormity of the office and the repercussions that his constant attacks are having on the people.
It is imperative that we are able to hold views and debate issues without fear of violence or reprisal, things that happen all too often to those who speak up. This principle of free political speech is the cornerstone of any healthy populace and the basis of every successful government. America must realize that having free speech and being able to accept one another and every unique viewpoint is how we can flourish in the future.