Color me puzzled, baffled, confused ... .
In my search for just the right words, I just found out that the antonym for the above words is enlightened.
That, honestly, surprised me. I had just never put that together.
It seems to follow then, that since I am perplexed about the following issue, that I would do well to submit this to those who consider themselves enlightened.
I have scratched my head raw trying to ferret out this mystery. How is it that when President Obama sticks to his (not real) guns when dealing with the legislature, he is "A strong leader," "Decisive," "A man of principles," Courageous," but when the other side of the aisle endeavors to stake out positions based on their guiding principles, they are sharply criticized as being inflexible, and of being obstructionists, et cetera, et cetera?
Won't some enlightened soul out there please help me out? Light just one little candle to ease the tormenting anguish that relentlessly hounds me, night and day, regarding this vexing dilemma?
If no one can provide me with a satisfactory answer, although the full Supreme Court probably wouldn't consider this, perhaps I'll submit it to the Honorable Antonym Scalia. — Bob Calhoun, Eagle Point
As of Nov. 4, 2012, our national debt was $16.394 trillion and growing. This would not be if our nation had a budget and lived by it, as we the people must do.
The government takes in from taxes $2.45 trillion a year but spends $3.54 trillion — this must stop. This is the reason they have to raise the debt ceiling every few months.
Entitlements are another problem. Half of our people are supported by the other half — we need to find jobs for those who are able to work.
The Federal Reserve is buying $40 billion worth of mortgages every month, and in time this will cause inflation. Also, we give more than 150 nations around the world foreign aid — this must stop since we borrow 40 percent of all expenditures each month (this aid is money we borrow). An exception would be Israel, our best friend.
The following statement I found says it all: "The government can't give anyone anything that they haven't already taken from someone else." — Gordon DeVos, Medford
I'm upset that the state has decided to salt our roads. They failed to ask us, the people what we would like to do.
I agree 100 percent with Bill Varble's Nov. 18 commentary. After years of work repairing the damage to our rivers and streams with pollutants, you'd think "some nut up north" would have thought of the consequences of using salt.
And what about the damage to our cars? Is this a conspiracy with Obama to help the unions work more hours building the cars that the salt will destroy? Hopefully an environmentalist lawyer will file a suit! — Chuck Brook, Medford
MURA should reconsider its decision about restoring the Greyhound Arch. It could be a very interesting element of The Commons park blocks.
George Kramer's guest opinion alerted us to the possibility of MURA's backtracking from the original plan for retaining and restoring this remnant of Medford's history. It is good to have a historian's perspective on the importance of preserving this link with 1940s Medford in the park blocks.
Most West Coast cities and towns have the usual plantings, sculpture, water features, play equipment, etc. We believe preserving the Greyhound Arch would identify Medford as being visionary and unique rather than a mundane, ordinary city.
To quote Kramer: "Downtown Medford will be better for it, and so will The Commons." — Robert and Joanne Wilcox, Central Point