Published: June 29, 2009 12:20 am         

Readers' Forum: June 29, 2009

‘Reasoned dialogue’ or ‘tortured logic’

This letter is a final response to the letter of Raymond Broshar, June 23, 2009. It will be my final response to your writings, sir, because it has become clear to me that you believe only your comments are “informed” and that only your dialogue is “reasoned.”

Why do any further rebutting if I am so hopelessly outclassed? Based on what I have observed of your “reasoned dialogue” thus far, however, I have decided that you would not recognize “reasoned dialogue” if it jumped up and bit you on the backside.

You are a master, however, of composing bombastic, sweeping, pompous, doomsday generalizations which you do not support with evidence. Why do you not avail yourself of the opportunity to give precise, hard, clear examples of the freedoms you think we are losing so disastrously? You were the one who listed only failed government programs. A person of “reasoned dialogue” would have conceded that there are many working, effective government programs helping millions. The onus is not on me to list them — as a man of “reasoned dialogue,” you have that responsibility.

A man of “reasoned dialogue” would not label a man he has probably never met “one of the most hateful persons in the country.” A man of “reasoned dialogue” would not try to persuade a newspaper to stop publishing cartoons he disagrees with and then claim that he does not “wish to censor persons”. A man of “reasoned dialogue” would not write, “I am not personally attacking Mr. Hackleman” after writing, “When the Hacklemans of this world are willing to completely surrender their freedoms to the masters in Washington we will have seen our Great Experiment die.” If I were Mr. Hackleman, I would definitely feel “personally attacked.” But maybe I am just overly sensitive.

A man of “reasoned dialogue” would look up a big word before using it incorrectly. I did not “ostracize” you for your broadsides to Lew Hackleman. A man of “reasoned dialogue” would not try to draw an analogy between a newspaper putting a cartoon on an editorial page and a drunk puking in the middle of a “gathering place.” A man of “reasoned dialogue” would not categorize Mr. Toles with the Unabomber. Or am I just so uninformed and lacking in reason that I have misconstrued the tortured logic in paragraphs two and three of your latest letter?

Anyway, continue to reward us with your “reasoned dialogue.” This “uninformed” reader has read (and responded to) his last Broshar letter. I have had all the “reasoned dialogue” I can stomach for a while.

— Randall B. Allen

Brazil



Vigo County jail a sour facility

Some people buy a car only to find out they have a lemon. They keep pumping money into it making repairs, only to discover another problem has come up.

The taxpayers of Vigo County have their own lemon called the Security Center. More money has been pumped into this building than the building is probably worth. Most repairs generally run over $50,000 and now they have to do something about the ceiling to keep the prisoners from trying to escape.

Let’s face it, it was poor planning on the part of those who decided to build a new jail. This building is in a poor location — the only way it can grow is up. The last addition to the jail was way over a million dollars. Still we have to send prisoners to other county jails because we don’t have the room to hold them.

This means more of the taxpayers’ money. Perhaps the county commissioners should look for another place to build the next jail, maybe in the industrial park. Vigo county owns a lot of land down there. In the meantime, I guess the taxpayers will have to continue to pay for the lemon at Third and Wabash.

— Fred Roberts

Terre Haute