Apparently there are some people in our area who do not understand what “Socialism” is - and isn’t. It might, therefore, be a good idea to check out just what “Socialism” actually means. Also, “Communism” and “Welfare.”

First, let’s remember that the word “Socialism,” accompanied by a gasp of horror and a capital “S,” came about when it was used as a companion word with “Communism:” that is, “Capital C” Communism. “Red” Communism. (Red being the background color of the Russian Communist flag.) “Red Communism” came, generally, to mean the common financial and medical neglect and imperilment of the people of Russia and other Red Communist countries, while their leaders lived very well, indeed.

Let’s check with Webster’s fine dictionary for the word “social.” There are several shades of meaning given in the dictionary, but the one that concerns us is “something that is of [or about] the life and welfare of human beings in a community.”

Now, let’s go on to “socialism:” it is “a …system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively by the people, or by the government.” That is, jobs which produce goods and services that are needed by the people, and the distribution of those goods and services, be they food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or what-have-you, are owned and controlled by either the people or the government.

Let me insert this reminder, right here: the United States of America is “a government, of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.” It was the dearly-held hope of the founders of this country, as well our hope today, that this form of government “shall not perish from the earth.” So, either way, in our country, “socialism” would mean that our access, or our ways and means, to our welfare are owned and controlled by all of us.

“Welfare” is described by Webster’s as “health, happiness and prosperity: well-being.” Also, “organized efforts to improve the living conditions of needy persons.” Here again, “we, the people” elect government officials and invest them with the responsibility of seeing to it, that all of us benefit from the taxes that are levied, and to see to it that no one “falls through the cracks.” Welfare, as we use it, is socialistic in nature. It can make all the difference to many people, but we don’t have a fully socialized medical or welfare system. That is because of the scare tactics of those who do not have our common best interest at heart. Those who would scare us away from “Socialized Medicine” either don’t understand what it means, or have “higher priorities” (profit making) than the health and well-being of us, their fellow citizens.

The idea is that, in America, “socialism” is nothing more than “we, the people” using our governing body to organize and distribute certain things we need, rather than each person or family seeking their necessities on their own, through private, profit-making providers of insurance or medical care. With American socialism, the government agencies do the bookkeeping for us. They would be responsible for keeping track of the money coming in from our taxes to pay for social programs, such as Socialized Medicine. They are responsible for keeping track of the money from our taxes to pay for Welfare, Social Security, VA Benefits, and Medicare. And they are responsible for paying it out to us or to our medical or other providers, in our best interest. These government employees are paid a wage, and are therefore not in the business to make a profit for themselves. That is the difference.

For an interesting breakdown of healthcare systems world-wide, and why the United States ranks 37th in the industrialized world in providing health care instead of first (France ranks first), read T. R. Reid’s “The Healing of America.” It should be required reading for all of us. It’s not a long book, and it is easy to read. And you’ll finally feel you have a good handle on what’s what in the health care business!

Sincerely,
Gail Rendle
Nicholson, PA

Let’s talk about love. Let’s have a little patriotic fun. I want to consider the two-edged insinuation that was hurled by Texas Governor Rick Perry. One edge being, President Barack Hussein Obama junior is sorely lacking in love for this country.

If true, that would present an awkward situation. After all, the country loved that man enough to make him president. But then, our literature is replete with stories about unrequited love.

The other edge concerns Rick, who is now racing for the presidential nomination of his Republican Party. I for one am perfectly willing to grant that this man loves this country very much. What’s more, it is very reasonable to suppose Rick possesses enormous confidence.

And that gives me pause. Does that make him presume the country will love him enough to make him president? Again, our literature is replete with stories about unrequited love.

Sincerely,
A Alexander Stella
Susquehanna Depot, PA

Following is a letter written to District Justice, Peter M. Janicelli, which we were asked to publish:

“I read recently that you sentenced a woman to one year probation. I am extremely disappointed.

She was responsible for my Grandson’s (Alex Hinkley) death. She also caused the death of her own son. She continually lied about providing alcohol to two minors. She influenced others to also lie, to support her lie. What does it take to get jail time for from you?

In addition to her other acts she either has, or planned to bring a law suit against my son, Todd and his wife. She wants a financial reward for her illegal acts? Killing their son was not enough, she wants to cause Todd and Cheryl more pain and mental suffering. What do you think probation will teach her?”

Sincerely,
Kirk S. Hinkley, Jr.
Hallstead, PA

Now that most or all of you have your electricity back, take a hard look at how you would handle doing without the basic necessities for a month or more. I found out that I didn’t have a manual can opener (since rectified). Last year I replaced the hand pump mechanism for the well in the yard we used when I was a kid. The reason I mention all of this is that I am a bit uneasy about how things are going to unfold as we get closer to the election of 2012. There are plenty of forces at play that most or all of us have never experienced. You don’t want to be caught without having prepared at least the minimum. Look at the national situation in the same way that you would look at a severe weather event, one much worse than hurricane Irene. If you are prepared, you will be able to help out your neighbor who is unable to care for themselves. With respect to those who don’t prepare, know who they are so you don’t squander your resources on the grasshoppers.

Sincerely,
Joe McCann
Elk Lake, PA

Generals are always fighting the last war. If the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and if the Germans decide that a little more lebensraum in the East would be nice, the Navy, Air Force, and Army, will be more than ready for them - again.

Think of the premier weapons of the last world conflict, the aircraft carrier, the plane, and the tank. Sixty-five years after WWII they are still the premier weapons. The carrier is prime example of reliving the past.

The Navy is going to replace all eleven Nimitz super carriers with ultra carriers, the Ford class. At $13.5 billion a piece the bill comes to $150 billion and that’s without factoring in cost overruns and inflation.

But something happened last November that should throw the carrier program into the round file.

A carrier never travels alone but is enveloped in a Zeus’ shield of surface, air, and underwater protection. On the surface she is guarded by at least one cruiser and two or more destroyers. In the air, planes scan over the horizon. And beneath the waves a hunter-killer sub listens for the tell-tale sound of enemy subs. An impenetrable triple cocoon - or so the admirals thought until...

... until a lone Chinese sub surfaced completely undetected until visibly sighted and well within torpedo range of the USS Kitty Hawk. The carrier might as well have had a bull’s-eye painted on its hull. The Chinese sub, if it chose to do so, could have let loose a spread of “fish” that would have disabled or sunk the flat top.

“So sorry,” said the Chinese commander. “All mistake.”

Some “mistake.” As submariners say, it was “a hole in the ocean” that evaded the planes, the radars, and the sonars, of the entire battle fleet.

For WWII, the Ford class would have out-classed the best of its Japanese counterparts. But for a 21st century conflict, it’s an antique.

The No. 1 killing machine of WWII was the plane. Bombers shepherded by P-52s carpet bombed city after city in Germany and Japan out of existence incinerating millions.

But the Air Force, too, is enamored with the past. Today, it has the most advanced, lethal, and stealthiest bomber, the B-2. Its top fighter, the F-22, “is unmatched by any known or projected fighter,” claims the Air Force. That’s good and it should be with a sticker price of $140 million per plane - but not good enough.

The Air arm wants to upgrade to the F-35. The estimated cost for 2,400 planes is $323 billion doubling the Navy’s cost for their 11 carriers. Surely, if a F-22 tangled with a Zero or Messerschmidt no one would doubt the outcome. But two questions disturb: Is there a need for a F-35? More to the point, do we even need the F-22?

The U.S. is directly, indirectly, and subvertly, entangled in six wars. In none of them in any reasonable future confutation will F-22s be involved.

The last decisive weapon of WWII is the tank. It has evolved over the decades in to the Army’s Abrams M1A2 main battle tank. It is as impressive as its price of $6 million. The Abrams is widely acknowledged to be the world’s best. But the Army wants to go better than best.

This year the Army will award $1 billion in contracts for designs of a new tank. The Pentagon will select a final design in 2017. The lumbering Behemoth is projected to outweigh its predecessor by several tons and cost more than six times as much.

Now surely, an Abrams could send a Tiger II to Valhalla. But the Tigers are gone and perhaps even the tank is a Jurassic survivor from the past.

A man-portable, fire-and-forget missile can head straight toward a target, then zoom up and down onto the thinly armored topside of a tank. Excepting for their role in the first Iraqi war, they are too expensive and vulnerable to cheap, disposable, and widely available antitank weapons.

Just to sharpen the point, the Marines want of all things, landing crafts, 600 of them at $20 million per craft. They were vital in the island-hoping Pacific war against Japanese. But today they belong in a military museum.

Fighting the last war over again is always a losing strategy, but in this case it is also a pathetically futile one.

Ships, planes, and tanks, will have no part in WWIII. It will be a war of missiles. A rain of nuclear bombs launched by land, sea, air and satellites. It will last 30 minutes. No one will ever know who won. Those who survive will not care.

Sincerely,
Bob Scroggins
New Milford, PA