Shutdown showed lack of leadership by president
At last, after a standoff lasting nearly two-and-a-half weeks, Congress got its act together. The government shutdown has ended, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers are making money and again contributing to the economy.
Thank you, Congress, for doing what we elected you to do.
The fact that the government shutdown happened, it turned into a bitter battle over Obamacare, and the United States almost defaulted on our debt is an extreme embarrassment to both the Republican and the Democratic Party.
I place the majority of the blame for these embarrassing developments on President Obama. When the initial debate over the government shutdown began, President Obama said, in his own words, “I will not negotiate.”
Negotiating is a characteristic, and a requirement, for leadership. A man or woman, regardless of race, political views or sexual preference, should be ready to negotiate when they are in a position of leadership. When they don’t, then it should be obvious: Vote the person out.
I do applaud the Republicans who took a stand against the implementation of Obamacare. Annually, it will draw $741 billion from Medicare, a service depended upon by millions that has been quite effective in assisting the poor with health care coverage.
Does America really want to replace an effective and successful system with a potentially disastrous one? The government should not be able to force its people to pay for the medical care of others under a government-mandated health system. That is leading the country on the path to socialized medicine, a path the United States of America does not want to take.
In the Declaration of Independence, it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Notice, among these rights, government-mandated public health care is not among them.
Review too critical of ‘Mornings at Seven’
Re Oct. 20 article, “Cast can’t save outdated ‘Morning’ ”: Amy Durant saw no redeeming social or artistic value in the Civic Player’s current production “Mornings at Seven.” She also, albeit “with regret,” advises potential patrons to give it a pass. I disagree with that
It is the kind of play that could be a charming period piece if it had a more focused theme and a stronger plot, and yes, it is “talky” and long. But I did not hear complaints except those called for by the script on stage.
The sets are wonderful, the costumes are perfect and the actors overcome the essential faults in the script — which much as Ms. Durant would like to chop is not a tradition in legitimate theater.
Everyone sees someone they know in the all-too-human characters. Today as then, many extended, mixed and blended “families” live in close proximity, just as do these four sisters in those “hard times.” Likewise, many contemporary folk find themselves in of the same annoyances, dependencies and misunderstandings that create both noteworthy kindnesses along with small-minded meanness. Intimacy can do that.
Although Ms. Durant moans that “what would seem shocking in 1939 barely fazes audiences now,” there is something very contemporary in the dilemma in which the incipient young couple find themselves!
The young woman who hopes for marriage and a home is more than a giggling, simpering newcomer. The Lane character manifests the cunning of a tightrope artist as she navigates this weird, yet strangely familiar “family.”
I hope people will find that this production is worth the price of a ticket and the time to evaluate for themselves.