Letters to the Editor

Who’s entitled?

Editor, the Journal,

A Jan. 20 letter in the Journal titled “entitlements” made me think of other “entitlements.” I would rather my tax money (federal and state) go to help families with child care, college, medical bills and family leave, Social Security and Medicare. I’d rather help small businesses with my tax dollars than have my money going for “entitlements” (subsidies, tax breaks) for oil, gas and coal companies, and for Amazon, Tesla, Boeing, Walmart, Nissan, Archer-Daniels-Midland and the list goes onc as well as paying farmers not to grow.

We know that people who are well-educated, healthy, well-fed and financially secure are happier, more productive and creative, as well as less likely to commit crimes.

On the other side of that, we know when people are under-educated, unhealthy, hungry, poor and in debt, they are more easily manipulated.

Donna Holliday, Shelton

Yay, road repair

Editor, the Journal,

A huge thank you after hearing that the Shelton mayor and city council will have West Railroad Avenue repaired come spring. My car hollered and jumped with joy after hearing this. I travel that street three times per week and back again after attending fun times at the Mason County Senior Center.

To think my car is still in one piece amazes me. The road has been in dire need since I moved here in 2017.

Auto insurance companies might have been involved in lawsuits from their customers if their vehicles were damaged from these junky roads. If the

truckers did it, then make them pay for road wear and tear.

V. Irene Stadel, Shelton

‘Free’ resources

Editor, the Journal,

I disagree with most of Mr. Ferguson’s letter of Jan. 20, but greatly admire his heartfelt attempt at a balanced tone without insults and slurs — a much-appreciated change of pace from many Journal contributors. I’d urge those who — like Ferguson — view our society as under an assault created by the “pernicious momentum” of other folks feeling entitled to “free” resources that “begin in the pockets of others” to also consider other possibilities.

It is indeed incumbent on all of us to seek explanations for the “underlying anger” behind the violent and destructive turn that our climate of protest has

taken. Ferguson and I both view protesting violations of individual rights as “valid and necessary forms of expression.” Now that many in our culture enjoy the right to be free to create their own “facts” and feel strongly that nothing in their own pockets arrived from the pockets of others, maybe it is time to shift some of our focus as citizens of the same American enterprise to helping improve the climate for freedom’s sisters — justice and equality.

My fundamental difference with Ferguson is that ongoing deficiencies in outcomes for these values spawns lack of hope and opportunity rather than “an acculturation of entitlement.” Generational inertia of our society’s ongoing failure to strive for justice and equality for all our fellows continues to grow while many chalk up those millions with empty pockets to feeling entitled for what is in ours.

David Ellis, Union

Limit expression

Editor, the Journal,

Anybody who thinks Jane Fonda was right should never be published and is a very sick person.

God bless America, not Hanoi.

George Skarich, Shelton

Right and wrong

Editor, the Journal,

I’m right — so you must be wrong! There it is, folks. You, me and most of the rest of us. We didn’t know it was going to happen. Our brains, once perfectly wired, have been altered by the input we have absorbed since we were young. That alteration has strengthened some and weakened others. Among the attitudes we have absorbed is that if we differ, I am right so you must be wrong. As babies, we had an open slate. We were simply waiting to be loved and taught how to be. Waiting to appreciate the gift bestowed upon us. To grow, to learn, to grow again. To do it over and over and hopefully, finally, learn how to love and be joyful. I guess the question is: How is it going for us? Individually and collectively?

For myself, I’m still struggling to see things clearly, to try to see the light and make it stay on. Right now, it’s kind of like the motion detector light on the eaves of my home. I can approach it in darkness, move into its light, walk farther and be back in the dark once more. Damned wiring failing again. So where did the wiring, the switches, plug-ins, and terminals in our minds get confused? I believe it begins with our attention.

Most of us have never taken control of our attention. We didn’t realize attention is the gateway to our mind and we didn’t consciously choose our gatekeeper. Since we weren’t aware we could choose what our attention was being drawn to, we just went along, occupied by survival and taking lessons at classes we didn’t know we were attending. Some of what has entered our minds has not been particularly productive and it has affected our collective capacity to know the objective truth about many things. Among those is the subtle influence of our cultures. It’s interesting to realize that every home has a different culture. Every group has its own culture and often its own agenda. That truth brings us to the media, its agenda and our own awareness or lack thereof. The media does sell us an agenda and we have allowed them to sell us those agendas for satisfaction of our own opinions and for profit. It’s largely why we see what we see when we watch televison. It seems the goal is to change rather than challenge our minds and to corrupt our hearts. Let’s face it, what else is causing the minds of millions of people to abandon rationality, to choose discord and diatribe as a means of communication? It’s astounding.

And it’s also stupid. “I’m right so you must be wrong.” That basic assumption lives in all of us, and it serves us to become aware of it. And who are the enablers, the purveyors of this assumption? Look once again, with an honest and clear mind at the agenda of the media. Particularly the news shows that have evolved into propaganda machines, promoting angry opinion columns. Big Brother social media companies as well are using discordant dialogue as a product, maybe even a project, grabbing our attention and doing it for fabulous sums of money.

As a kid, nothing got my attention like a good fight. And as viewers, we’re right there, focused on the fight, taking the side most agreeable to us and confirming how wrong the other side is. Ratings up. Profits up. Peace of mind and civil accord down. Way down. Today’s media sells discord for a profit. It’s a genius business model. “I’m right so you must be wrong.” How attractive to our attention is that?

Of course, we all know this, but still we surrender our attention to their agenda to promote the fight, to feed the anger and animosity of differing points of view. And there is a consequence to this surrender. It robs us of our collective peace and with the loss of peace goes our reason. I’m right about that, and if you don’t agree, you’re wrong. See how it works?

What if as a purposeful choice, as a person, as a people and as country, we change the tone of our discourse? What if we were to change ourselves, could we change our politicians? Could we begin to expect our media to speak about the substance of issues? Could we demand they seek objective truth? Could we demand that they give us objective truth so we can assess what it means for us? Can they help unite us rather than rip us apart? We must demand that politicians and the media speak plainly regarding issues of importance. I for one would like them to help us understand the basis for their thinking and their actions and quit making others wrong because they see things from a different point of view. If there must be change, it should evolve from transparent, thoughtful, meaningful, and workable deliberations that are both inclusive and fair, discovered through discourse that reflects reasoning and compromise with attitudes of respect and courtesy.

Am I right or wrong, or simply different?

Lee Ferguson, Shelton

Under his skin

Editor, the Journal,

I read with amusement last week’s letter by Ardean Anvik.

Apparently, I have gotten under his skin.

Ardean refers to a letter I wrote three months ago regarding a list of books he suggested.

In last week’s letter, Ardean objected to my comment that his list was made up of books of fiction, not historical references. He also decided to add descriptive words of his own to my book choice, “Chicken Little,” adding in his words, it’s a “book about Biden” (apparently another person who is under his skin). The fact is, Ardean’s list of books are fiction, so I’m not sure why my truthful comment should bother him, especially after all this time.

Ardean, as usual, took the opportunity to look down his nose and scold me, telling me what I’m thinking, what I know and what I don’t know and used his scolding to rant again about all things Democrat at the same time.

It’s interesting how Ardean seems to know what every Democrat and Republican and reader of this newspaper is thinking every week, and knows every political decision outcome before it happens, or doesn’t. Perhaps he has a crystal ball or Ouija board that gives him this wisdom.

Mr. Anvik’s usual response to criticism is to whine and say he, rather than his message, has been personally attacked — I expect that in his next letter. However, there is an old saying, “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.”

He has accused me, and others, of being “fixated” with ex-President Donald Trump, that he is “in my head” and I’m really “into him (?).” I find this

funny coming from someone who I picture has spent the last three months hand to forehead clutching his pearls pacing the floor fussing about something I said.

While I can appreciate your attention, Mr. Anvik, I think you can get me out of your head and quit your fixation over me now.

If you need one, I believe Robert Graham is giving out hugs.

Patricia Hawley, Shelton