To the Editor:
Re “Why Republicans Are Surging,” by David Brooks (column, Oct. 21):
Don’t accomplishments count for anything? The Democrats, with small majorities in both houses of Congress, have achieved an enormous amount. They have identified problems and have begun to deal with many of them. Sure, they haven’t done all they would like — or we need — but they are working on it seriously.
Contrast their efforts with the statements, not to mention the actions, of the Republicans. Anyone who thinks Republicans are going to deal conscientiously with the problems is delusional.
I worry a lot about the midterms. Too many races are much closer than they should be — including those here in Pennsylvania and, incredibly, Georgia. The stakes are very high.
Stephen M. Davidson
Philadelphia
To the Editor:
One reason that Republicans appear to be surging is that the climate crisis is given so little emphasis in the midterms. It will have far-reaching consequences if the foes of climate action take control of Congress. They would thwart further urgently needed federal action.
While we already see the results of long inaction on climate, such as floods and fires, now is not the time to foreclose options for action.
We must protect against dire events like the flooding of our major coastal cities such as New York and Miami, and a hostile future environment for our children and grandchildren.
Jack Holtzman
Irwin Rubenstein
San Diego
To the Editor:
David Brooks’s column presenting the issues driving Republican voters might have also advised his readers that Republicans have presented no solutions to any of those problems. Their long crusade against affordable health insurance has featured exactly zero serious proposals, and their decades-long attacks on spending and entitlements have included no realistic alternatives.
In fact, the last Republican president to champion anything that would serve the interests of working Americans was Theodore Roosevelt, who left office more than 100 years ago. Mr. Brooks’s presentation of only half of the story did not serve American voters.
Eric R. Carey
Arlington, Va.
To the Editor:
So why is the Republican message more easily accepted? Perhaps because it is much easier to appeal to individuals’ worst fears and prejudices (they are coming after your job!) than it is to provide detailed and complicated responses to difficult issues. It is even easier when you are not tied to the truth.
Mike Kupfer
South Portland, Maine
Addiction Medicine for Pregnant Women
To the Editor:
Re “Initiative Aims to Improve Addiction Treatment for Pregnant Women” (news article, Oct. 22):
As a board-certified obstetrician and addiction medicine specialist, I read with great interest your article describing the Biden administration’s proposed plan to increase access to buprenorphine and methadone for pregnant women with opioid use disorders.
I hope that The New York Times will emphasize that women with substance use disorders navigate medical, legal and societal landscapes that sometimes thwart their attempts to achieve recovery and a stable family life. It is therefore so important that we do not continue to penalize them for having a treatable medical condition.
I am especially concerned that judges might misinterpret the spirit of these changes and make medication utilization a mandatory condition for women to maintain their freedom or their children.
Women with substance use disorders have almost universally experienced trauma, and it is critically important that all systems that interact with them take a trauma-informed approach, which includes shared decision making.
If the goal is truly to increase access to these lifesaving medications, what the Biden administration should mandate instead is that providers cannot deny treatment to women simply because they are pregnant! It is only by treating these women with dignity and respect that we can help them create lasting, healthy futures.
Lulu Zhao
Cleveland
Biden’s Broken Promise to Refugees
To the Editor:
Re “Years, and Frustration, Mount for Those Awaiting Refugee Status” (front page, Oct. 19):
The Biden administration’s failure to address refugee crises effectively after promising to rebuild our refugee program is unacceptable. The administration is clearly struggling to bring in its target of 125,000 refugees, having brought just a pitiful 11,411 last year.
This failure affects not only Ukrainian refugees who seek refuge from the Russian war, but also refugees from other countries who have been waiting years for their applications to go through.
By declining deserving applicants refugee status, we risk their personal safety and economic success while sacrificing the benefits that they, as workers, would provide to the U.S. economy.
The administration’s promise to fix the broken refugee system left behind by the Trump administration, and its increase of the annual refugee cap to a maximum of 125,000 people, give voters a false sense of resolution as we approach the next U.S. presidential election.
Steph Ford
Stevenson, Wash.
‘Difficult’ Patients, and My Dad
To the Editor:
Re “Learning to Really See ‘Difficult’ Patients,” by Gina Siddiqui (Science Times, Oct. 18):
As I read this essay I thought of my father, John Salvatore, in his battle with pancreatic cancer. He was a registered nurse for 40 years — experienced, intelligent and cognizant of his illness and all its nuance.
He sensed new symptoms as a chef touches meat for temperature. He demanded to see his blood work before his appointments. He wanted to flush his own catheter line. Even in the throes of sepsis, he guided a new nurse to find a stubborn vein for an IV.
He was never disrespectful, but he asked the hard questions and expected wise answers … until he was too tired and too sick to push anymore. Ultimately, Dad succumbed to this terrible illness.
Perhaps to his medical team, he was a difficult patient, but also a fighter, smart and fully aware of the care he needed and deserved. After all, he spent the better part of his life giving that care to others — with both competence and humanity.
I hope that rather than resent him, his doctors and nurses respected him. I believe that they did.
Diana Napolillo
Brooklyn
A Steve Jobs Memorial
To the Editor:
Re “Who Gets the Last Word on Steve Jobs? He Might” (front page, Oct. 22), about the establishment of the Steve Jobs Archive:
What is an archive? Is a curated repository of material gathered by the widow of Steve Jobs properly called a historical archive? I suggest that Laurene Powell Jobs is in the process of creating something different, and would be wise to call it what it is. I’d call it a memorial.
It seems similar to what we do when we hold a service for a fallen friend or relative. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it is different. We invite people to speak, but we don’t invite enemies or opponents.
We’re not looking for a wide range of opinions, the way journalists or historians would be when they examine an archive. It will all be laudatory. If warts are mentioned, they will be small and insignificant.
David Hechler
New York
"Opinion" - Google News
October 25, 2022 at 10:37PM
https://ift.tt/sg7BaHj
Opinion | Democrats vs. Republicans: A Scorecard - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/v7toZOi
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment