Country’s foundation weakened by compromise
To the editor:
Compromise — for a group to give up something they want in order to come to an agreement.
People have come to cherish this word, believing this country was built on compromise. Maybe it’s because it contains the word promise in it. Whatever the reason, I don’t agree. I believe our country is in the shape it is in not because of Democrats or Republicans or the tea party; it is because of compromise itself. How much of our beliefs are we willing to compromise to reach an agreement? How far will we compromise ourselves? We have seen the extreme compromise by our government, and look where that has led us. I am not only talking about our economy, I am also and more importantly talking about our rights and our morals.
What got me thinking about this word compromise was the recent earthquake. I was watching the news and they were showing some foundations that were cracked. In other words, they were weakened or compromised by the shaking.
That is exactly what we are seeing now, our very foundation on which this country was founded and built has been weakened by the shaking better known as compromise. The foundation I speak of is God and Christianity. You don’t believe that is our foundation? One only needs to read the thoughts our forefathers wrote down to discover the truth for themselves.
I would like to recall a recent column by Allan Powell about one of our forefathers. His name was Alexander Hamilton, a signer of the Constitution and a constitutional lawyer. I was surprised to read of the admiration and respect Powell has for this man. When you hear this statement by Alexander Hamilton (from the book “God’s Promises for the American Patriot”), you will understand my surprise.
“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity, I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”
It’s not too late to repair the cracks of compromise.
David Spade
Clear Spring
We can better compete with China without unions
To the editor:
At what point did the National Labor Relations Board get the power to tell companies where they can and can’t open factories? I am speaking, of course, of the complaint that the NLRB has filed against Boeing for opening a plant in South Carolina to build their new 787 Dreamliner.
It seems as though the NLRB feels that Boeing has broken labor laws by building this jet in a “right-to-work” state (to punish workers in Washington state for past strikes). At a time when our president claims to be focused on job creation, this lawsuit by the NLRB seems absurd. President Obama has made it clear that he is on the side of the unions that donated millions to his campaign. He even gave a speech on Labor Day to a crowd that was warmed up by Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
President Obama has made it clear in several speeches that unions will be a major part of the “rebuilding of this economy.” Has the president not noticed that while many union auto plants in Michigan and Ohio have closed, close to a dozen nonunion auto plants have opened in the south? Manufacturers like Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Hyundai and Kia have opened factories, employing thousands of American workers.
How many of these companies would have moved production to the U.S. if they had to work with unions? Boeing’s main competitor, Airbus, has one of its plants in China. Would our president prefer Boeing build its jets in China?
After visiting Charleston, S.C., recently, I can assure you that the people of South Carolina are thrilled to have Boeing there. Maybe the first step in the president’s new “jobs bill” should be to drop this suit against Boeing. Unions might have had their place years ago, but I think it’s obvious that we can better compete with China without them.
Bill Stryker Jr.
Waynesboro, Pa.
Where is humanity in Herald-Mail stories?
To the editor:
What became of the humanity behind the stories? I reference the Sept. 24, 2011, front-page stories on the lucrative C&O Canal traffic business and the newest Hagerstown Housing Authority’s senior citizens apartment complex at 55 W. Baltimore St.
About the towpath, it was said, “This program gets them off the towpath and into the towns and spending money.” That sentence expresses contempt. The program sounds just the opposite of encouraging people to go out on the towpath where they learn history, exercise and enjoy themselves. Of course, we can encourage people to stop by in our towns and let us serve their needs as they enjoy the towpath. Do we want to be greedy and just take or do we want to serve the canal travelers? It was also said that, “We like people to come here and spend money and leave ... ” Perhaps where these visitors came from, their top priority would be for us to send money and disappear, rather than for the emphasis to be on serving us. We need to quit treating people as a commodity and do unto others as we would have them to do unto us.
About the new Hagerstown Housing Authority senior apartments at 55 W. Baltimore St., it was said that it is “only three blocks from the center of town” and “an example of urban planning done right.” If I was 75 and most likely physically vulnerable due to my age and health, I wouldn’t want to be walking blocks of downtown or near downtown. I would fear for my well-being. I would much prefer suburban planning done right over around HCC or Leitersburg Pike, somewhere where it is safe for older people to live. Then a bus route could take residents from senior apartments around to areas they frequent. Let us sincerely think about others when we plan for their living arrangements.
Anne P. Wright
Boonsboro
