Newspaper critical of Trump but not Biden
I read with interest the editorial “Russia wages war on more than Ukraine” (DP-02-26-22) and the obvious lies put forth by the Russians, including their use of Facebook, Twitter and the media to flood the United States with misinformation about the invasion and Russia’s intent. As The Dominion Post printed, “However, since social media plays a large role in how many of us get our news, it’s essential that we become critical media consumers.”
To address my concerns, for the past five years this newspaper — along with most media outlets — have done nothing but demonize President Trump and the Republican Party, from collusion with the Russians to quid pro quo with Ukraine. I read articles criticizing the first lady on her outfit, how the White House was decorated for Christmas and Trump’s son Barron. The Dominion Post states “the Republican Party has no ‘solution’ beyond criticizing whatever Biden does.”
What about Durham’s political investigation — with additional information to follow — implicating Hillary Clinton and some top government officials in false allegations against President Trump? “And because it’s an election year, members of the opposition party will say President Biden is failing no matter what he does.” Isn’t that’s exactly what The Dominion Post and social media has done for the past five years to President Trump and the Republican party?
Just because this paper is knee deep in partisan politics, it does not relieve it of the obligation to print the true facts and present them to the people of West Virginia, allowing them to be critical media consumers.
I would like to read some factual information on the Biden family, including Hunter Biden’s involvement in Ukraine, China and what the president received from Hunter’s dealing. I would also like some investigative reporting on Durham’s investigation without partisan politics to allow me and West Virginians to decide for ourselves what we should believe.
I merely want unbiased information. If it’s derogatory to either party or individual, so be it. However it should be my interpretation what to believe.
Joe Cicchirillo
Morgantown
Don’t stand aside. Stand up for life
So often people love to use the term “separation of church and state” to justify a particular position that involves moral judgment of our nation. Such is the case of the letter to the editor in the Feb. 27 edition of The Dominion Post entitled “Church needs to stand aside on abortion laws.”
As most folks know, there is no constitutional prohibition against religious leaders or religious people commenting on either the creation or execution of any law. They have the First Amendment right to do so. Over the course of our nation’s history, most of our laws have been based on Judeo-Christian laws and philosophy. Our founding fathers relied on God for guidance in the creation of our country and its laws, a fact many like to ignore.
The taking of a human life through abortion is a serious matter and a defining characteristic of an advanced moral society. People with moral and religious convictions to protect human life must make their voices heard and not be quieted in shaping legislation. Standing aside is tantamount to approval of this immoral and barbaric practice. Our state and federal constitution were written to protect the liberty and life of all of us, including the pre-born. Our laws must reflect this.
People of strong religious convictions have a long and important history of effecting social change. From our founding fathers, many of whom were clergy, to the abolitionists of the 1850s, to the civil rights leaders of the 1960s, these brave and courageous people shaped human rights policy and law by their unashamed and active voices for the dignity and sanctity of life. To suggest that it’s time for the church to stand aside on abortion laws is to not only violate their First Amendment rights but also to stand against one of the most important human rights struggles and that is for the right to life.
John Martys
Morgantown
‘Unborn’ a convenient group to advocate for
Methodist Pastor David Barnhart speaks the truth about pro-birth hypocrisy.
If you care more about that tiny little glob of cells than you care about the unwanted baby once it is born, you are a pro-birth hypocrite. Keep your religion out of it. This country was founded on the separation of church and state — that’s where the discussion must end.
If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t want anyone to have an abortion, then get out there and advocate for universal access to free birth control. More birth control leads to fewer abortions.
Here’s what Pastor Barnhart said on Facebook (do you recognize yourself?):
“ ‘The unborn’ are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education or child care; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power or privilege, without reimagining social structures, apologizing or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
Wantagh Memorial Congregational Church, in Wantagh, N.Y., posted the following on its community bulletin board: “God prefers kind atheists over hateful Christians.”
Elaine Wolfe
Morgantown
W.Va. needs more Opioid Treatment Programs
As a master’s student studying public health, I support West Virginia House Bill 4573, repealing the Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) Moratorium. West Virginia state code §16-5Y-12 placed a prohibition on the licensure of new OTPs. This moratorium harms efforts to combat overdose deaths since methadone treatment is critical in helping overcome the opioid crisis.
Since only OTPs are legally allowed to provide methadone treatment, a barrier has been placed between individuals and evidence-based treatment. Methadone has been the gold standard treatment since the 1960s and has proven effective in reducing illicit opioid use and preventing HIV infection. Policies that expand access to evidence-based treatments are critical to reduce the risk of opioid overdose.
In 2018, West Virginia ranked highest in the nation for opioid overdose deaths at 42.4 per 100,000 people; more than triple the U.S average. It is imperative that persons with substance use disorder have access to all treatment options, ensuring the overdose rate does not continue to increase. Methadone treatment provides a solution for ongoing SUD, whereas Naltrexone and Buprenorphine should not be administered until withdrawal symptoms emerge.
Sixteen West Virginia counties have drive times greater than one hour to an OTP. Some of these counties have extremely high overdose death rates, indicating a need for OTP expansion.
Hailie Arnold
Morgantown
Learning from JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” a quote by Charles Dickens that applies to the difficult times we are experiencing in March 2022. It also applies to a time in the past when JFK led our nation into and out of the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the help of his advisors, and lessons learned from earlier mistakes, he made good decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis that weren’t all appreciated at the time.
The most familiar accomplishment was the development of a hotline between the Soviet Union and the United States to make sure that communication mistakes wouldn’t lead to all-out (i.e., nuclear) war.
The other more controversial, and less appreciated, accomplishment involves something we learned in geometry class — how to draw a line. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has “Article 5,” which states an attack on one is an attack on all.
A conventional attack on a NATO member may very well elicit a combined conventional response, but the implication of a nuclear attack is a nuclear response, which all but assures complete destruction of civilization.
Another little known fact is that a country can remain neutral and still receive support in case it’s attacked. The purpose of NATO is to create a clear line not to cross — with nuclear weapons in the equation — not to address every conflict that occurs. JFK secretly moved the Jupiter missiles out of NATO member Turkey, realizing they made the Soviet Union feel like a cornered cat. Sometimes in a conflict, counterintuitive measures work.
Our president needs our public support at this time. We need to pivot on energy policy to apply appropriate pressure on Russia, so that we aren’t funding their attacks on our interests and, ultimately, the interests of all people.
These sorts of actions and sanctions are going to cause short-term economic pain. Through renewable energy and energy conservation, these troubles can be minimized.
Remember JFK’s example as someone who prioritized actual success over public perception.
Steven Knudsen
Morgantown
