Letters to the editor (Feb. 10, 2021)
Marshall’s loyalty
Sen. Roger Marshall ran for office as a devoted supporter of former President Trump. So far, Marshall’s blind devotion has lead him down a path of endorsing Trump’s treasonous behaviors.
On Jan. 6, Trump lead a coup d’etat, directing thousands of supporters, some of them armed, to overthrow the Capitol, endangering our vice president, senators and representatives. As our Capitol was being desecrated, Trump silently stood by for hours, finally saying to the traitors, “We love you. You’re very special.”
Marshall will not agree to convict Trump and vote to disqualify him from ever holding federal office again. Marshall claims a conviction of a former president is unconstitutional. Such legal absurdity! So, if Trump, two days before he left office, had given Putin or Kim Jong-un top secret intelligence risking the country’s security, Marshall would not convict Trump because he is no longer a sitting President?
I vividly remember watching the attempted bloody coup. Trump betrayed our country. Unfortunately, it looks as if Marshall will be falling into lock-step with the GOP, voting not to convict Trump.
No immunity for care homes
If you are helping or have helped a loved one select a nursing home or care facility, you already know how difficult it is to know that your loved one is receiving the highest standards of care. This is especially true with visitation rights so severely restricted during COVID-19.
There is currently a bill in the Kansas House, HB 2126, that intends to award adult care facilities immunity if someone dies or is seriously harmed by COVID while in their care.
Immunity from responsibility is never a good idea, but immunity for an adult care facility is truly dangerous. Who will decide whether the cause was COVID or simply not keeping staff and facilities up to the highest standards of care? You or your loved one will be required to determine that the cause was not COVID, and proving a negative is nearly impossible. Why should nursing homes not be responsible for the best of care possible for those we love? They are protected from frivolous lawsuits by laws that require their effort to provide the best care possible. Why shouldn’t they be required to show that they have provided that level of care in the case of suspected abuse or negligence?
Please notify your legislator that you are against HB 2126 because it restricts the family of seniors and the disabled from challenging claims of the highest standard of care in the case of abuse or neglect.
‘Social insanity’
Another step toward social insanity now purports to allow persons to wear their hair in any style they wish (“Kansas bill would ban discrimination against dreadlocks, other natural hairstyles,” Jan. 15).
I wonder if any of the geniuses who crafted this latest attempt to tell a business who they must hire realize they are rather discriminatory themselves? Despite claims from vocal minorities, new law does not remove discrimination; it only displaces it to a different segment of society.
Furthermore, morality cannot be successfully legislated. The flawed pale males who founded this dying republic were keenly aware of this defect in lawmaking, claiming instead that “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) would be our motto.
It is true that diversity of thought can be beneficial. But maintaining pockets of cultural diversity with various habits, languages and standards of acceptable behavior only leads to chaos.
Love story
I’ve been a sucker for a good love story all my life, and just read one of the best ever (“‘She’s my everything’: How WSU’s Clarence Jackson and his mother saved one another,” Feb. 2).
I’m still tearing up. Juanita Durham’s son is a special gift in several ways. If these two don’t show us a love story, I don’t know what would. And Clarence, I have a feeling Wichita has only just begun reading about you in the newspaper.