They really ‘care’ about America
Rush Limbaugh received the Medal of Freedom; the highest civilian honor awarded by a president. I think that’s a slap in the face to past recipients who were viewed as American heroes; like Babe Ruth, Bob Hope or John Glenn. This award is granted to recognize a meritorious contribution to national, cultural or world peace endeavors and I haven’t figured out how Rush Limbaugh fits that definition.
I know it’s been announced that Limbaugh has cancer and I certainly have compassion for anyone who suffers this terrible disease but should this be a “pity prize”? I haven’t noticed Trump having much pity for poor people who struggle to pay astronomical medical bills while the wealthy people can afford all the care they need. Neither Trump nor Limbaugh (whose net worth is $600 million) can even conceive of the financial challenges that the majority of Americans face everyday. But don’t worry. They really “care” about America.
Rush Limbaugh’s reputation as a radio host and author is based on using slurs and innuendos to get his audience riled up. His audiences love him for saying outrageous things that put down women, other races, religions or creeds. (Trump’s audiences enjoy that too because cruelty apparently amuses some people.) Limbaugh defends his actions with his famous quote, “Freedom of speech, folks.” He doesn’t claim what he says is true. He just claims his right to say it. And laughs all the way to the bank.
If our president thinks that a man is honorable because he has made money by mocking others, belittling those less fortunate, tearing down those who stand up for justice or feeding gullible people with conspiracy theories, well, that’s our president.
Martha Hodges
Kailua-Kona
Status of democracy
Wednesday’s vote in the Senate to acquit the president of impeachment charges has stirred some thinking in me about the status of our democracy. The impeachment provision in the U.S. Constitution — Article II, Section 4 — pertains to civil officers of the U.S., either appointed or elected, including the president. In the case of elected officials, the article does not provide for re-election to remove the official. The article seems to assume that the electorate can make a mistake, and it provides for a non-electoral remedy.
I used to regard this article as a bulwark against a possible mistake of the electorate in putting a person into office who was egregiously harmful to the country. In light of Wednesday’s vote, however, I can see that it is no solution to go around the electorate to remove such a person. Our practice in impeachment is for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict. If a majority of either of these bodies is in league with the offending official, there is absolutely no way to remove the official other than to wait for another election.
In other words, if the electorate does make a mistake, there is no way to set it right except to wait for it either to correct itself or to make the mistake all over again. This seems to leave a democracy extremely vulnerable to possible despots or tyrants or other very harmful officials.
Mike Keller
Kailua-Kona
