Retards on parade
About “Of retarded retards” [“Sordid Tales,” June 24]: Edwin Decker's mention of the people who have been rotting in Guantanamo brought to mind some retards that people have forgotten.
I don't remember if our local retard, Duncan Hunter Sr., led the retard parade, but he was certainly near the front. Recall how he stood before the camera like a maître d' reading the alleged menu that was being served to detainees as if that made up for all else?
In recent months, the retardedness of the “Retardlican Party”—as Decker called it—has been even more ludicrous. There have been pronouncements about nice weather, opportunity to exercise and free healthcare. The way the Retardlicans spin it, you would think that detention at Guantanamo was a fabulous all-expense-paid vacation to a tropical isle with all the amenities.
Dan Jacobs, Mira Mesa
About the June 24 issue...
Carl Luna should be writing weekly for CityBeat. He always manages to get to the crux of what's really going on in San Diego. His “San Diego song” [“Political Lunacy,” June 24] was on the mark. Where's Mike Aguirre when we need him?
“Kooky school planning” [“Editorial,” June 24] is also right on. As a master planner and teacher of social studies and architecture, the main library / charter school proposal has even me baffled. Why do you need bay views if you're reading? How much bookshelf space do we forfeit to all that “viewing glass”? Do books have eyes?
Building a new city hall [“The Front Lines,” June 24] to create jobs? Now, that's rich!
J. Otis Benton is dead wrong [“Letters,” June 24]. Donna Frye is not enough of a zealot. She is the only one qualified and deserving to be on the Coastal Commission. The question is: Do we deserve her?
Lee Juskalian, Cardiff
The problem with the hybrid “public option” plan for healthcare you mention in the July 1 editorial is that it starts out fundamentally compromised. And the only way to negotiate from there is down: The “moderate Democrats” you mention will bury the compromises of the hybrid plan with more compromises—just like they did with Clinton's plan 16 years ago. If anything, what we should learn from that debacle is that if you compromise people's basic human right to healthcare, you will have no grounds on which to make your argument for meaningful reform.
Incremental change has its place for solving some social problems—but not when powerful vested and entrenched interests are arrayed and organized against that change, as they are with regard to today's for-profit healthcare. The profit motive in healthcare is not going to go gradually or gently into that good night without a monumental fight.The thing is, when it comes to that fight and challenging entrenched interests—“given the perils of politics”—it's not unusual for some politicians to play it safe and savvy and duck the real issue, as Obama and the Democrats are doing with single-payer. But CityBeat, you're supposed to be a journalists. What's your excuse?
Greg Sullivan, Downtown