Jussie Smollett crying wolf helps no one: Readers sound off
Letter to the editor:
Those who are racist and bigoted will simply have a field day if it’s confirmed that Jussie Smollett’s attack was faked. But my only question to Smollett would be: Why and what were you thinking?
I’m sure his insurance company, his employer, his fans, his family and his friends would also have questions that he would be hard-pressed to answer. The loss of integrity is permanent and irreversible. I feel sorry for all the players in this story and for what could end up being a senseless waste of resources by our law enforcement personnel and health care providers in Chicago. Those who cry wolf could also profoundly impact the willingness of law enforcement to respond on future hate crimes.
Talker: Angry about Jussie Smollett? Here's what you can do
Finally, all of this dishonors the memories of those who have fallen victim to hate crimes in the past, and exponentially increases the risk that others will suffer the same fate in the future.
Marc Wilson; Hawthorne, Fla.
Green New Deal: Profoundly Conservative
Letter to the editor:
Like Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Green New Deal — which seeks jobs for all Americans in the course of attacking climate change— isn’t radical or socialist. It’s actually conservative.
Roosevelt mobilized our government to combat a depression at home and fascism around the world. Today’s Democrats would mobilize it to address a silent depression and save the planet from ecological catastrophe.
Related: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is a radical front for nationalizing our economy
The Green New Deal aims toward family-supporting jobs, with health care and retirement security. That would be a huge step toward ending our silent depression. And the jobs goal fits perfectly with achieving a sustainable economic future. Creating a green economy is a huge task: there will be much work to do. All this requires costly investments. But inaction is much more costly. Continued inaction ensures more people will lose faith in capitalism — and risks Earth’s ability to sustain human life.
Charles J. Whalen; Buffalo, N.Y.
A misdiagnosis isn't the case for majority
Letter to the editor:
All of us can agree that Walt Heyer’s story, published in USA TODAY, is terribly sad. He had a traumatic and abusive childhood, eventually contributing to a misdiagnosis and difficult adult life. But we can’t extrapolate his experience to disregard and fail to support an entire community of people.
I’m a transgender man, and I have worked on transgender issues for nearly 20 years. I’ve met hundreds of transgender people, and I’ve met even more families and friends of transgender people who want to do the right thing for their loved ones. The overwhelming majority of transgender people live happier, healthier, more fulfilling, and thriving lives when they can safely discover, articulate and be their authentic selves. That’s why the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and virtually all of America’s leading medical organizations affirm and support transgender people.
It’s understandable that people have questions about what it means to be transgender. It’s a new topic for a lot of Americans, and most people haven’t had a personal experience meeting a transgender person yet. Stories like Heyer’s are very rare, but they are scary. But the truth is, transgender people do exist. We’re family members, friends, coworkers, fellow worshippers and community members. We live full and meaningful lives, and being transgender is only one part of that. More than anything, we want the opportunity to work hard and take care of ourselves, just like everyone else, without fear of stigma, humiliation or discrimination. It’s about freedom for everyone.
Kasey Suffredini, president of strategy for Freedom for All Americans; Washington, D.C.
Embrace opioids alternatives
Letter to the editor:
As a practicing orthopedic surgeon, I applaud doctors Sesh Mudumbai, Randall Stafford and G. Caleb Alexander for highlighting the risks of postsurgical opioid use. While the national conversation often gravitates to the overuse of opioids for chronic pain, research continues to show that the surgical setting has become an unintentional gateway to long-term use, paving the way for dependence or addiction.
Despite the availability of effective alternatives, opioids continue to be overprescribed for postsurgical pain. In fact, a new analysis reveals that patients were prescribed nearly 100 to 200 pills to help treat pain from four common procedures.
Related: Having surgery? Beware of risk from post-op opioids
Fortunately, there is an emerging class of surgeons who embrace new alternatives to perform opioid-free surgeries for orthopedic and spine procedures, C-sections and more — a notion that was never thought possible. In my practice, patients receive surgeries that follow a multimodal pain management protocol, which includes FDA-approved opioid alternatives that include a long-acting local anesthetic that numbs the site of surgery for the duration of the most severe postsurgical pain.
It’s imperative surgeons and patients discuss pain management options prior to surgery. By removing or minimizing the use of opioids within the surgical suite, we can turn the tide on the epidemic.
Shariff K. Bishai, orthopedic surgeon; Detroit
Sanders is not a novel candidate anymore
Letter to the editor:
In classical rhetorical theory, the word “kairos” refers to the opportune time and/or place — that is, the right or appropriate time to say or do the right or appropriate thing. On Tuesday, timing remained a significant concept for understanding political events. Case in point: the announcement by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that he is running to be president in 2020.
In 2016, when Sanders mounted a strong challenge for the Democratic nomination, his message was rhetorically unique and persuasive — standing in sharp contrast to that of Hillary Clinton and others. This is no longer the case. Most of his progressive ideas — Medicare for All, free college tuition, higher taxes for the wealthy, etc. — are advocated by several candidates already in the Democratic race.
Related: How Bernie Sanders and Democrats can avoid the 2016 mistakes that gave us Donald Trump
But one might also argue that “kairos” works rhetorically against Sanders for another reason. President Donald Trump has set the agenda for the 2020 general election, potentially pre-empting Democratic proposals by making “socialism” an evil term. If what I am suggesting is true, Sanders may not be the best choice — and probably won’t be nominated.
Richard Cherwitz; Austin
I changed my mind on late-term abortion
Letter to the editor:
I have a great appreciation to Kate Carson for sharing her story in her column, "I had a later abortion because I couldn't give my baby girl both life and peace," and bringing awareness to the issue of late-term abortions. I had never imagined that there were rational, humane and necessary reasons for these procedures. I stood on a pro-choice platform guided by a vague intuition of its progressiveness, putting the late-term question on the side.
Related: I had a later abortion because I couldn't give my baby girl both life and peace
As a mom, I’m so proud of Carson for making her baby’s story known. I had not before considered that there are circumstances in which life could be a cruelness to protect unborn children from. Hearing Carson’s family story, I understand now that a “choice” can be so obvious it isn’t a choice at all, and what I really mean to support are the options. From here on out, I will tell people I’m pro-option and explain, through Carson’s story, why and how this stance is different, and why it needs protection.
Genevieve Lane; Victoria, Minn.
Both sides play politics on the wall
Letter to the editor:
Chris Truax's column, "Donald Trump's emergency declaration is an attack on democracy," argues that President Donald Trump declared an emergency in order to fund the wall for political reasons. Yet the Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have refused the president’s request for $5.7 billion to build the wall because of political reasons of their own.
Related: Democrats and Republicans flip all the time on border security
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want the president to “win” on this issue. What is $5.7 billion in our $19 trillion a year economy? One and a half modern aircraft carriers cost more. This whole business is right out of the Politics 101 textbook.
Robert Peele; Rocky Mount, N.C.
To join the conversations about topics on USA TODAY, email letters@usatoday.com, comment on Facebook, or use #tellusatoday on Twitter.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Jussie Smollett crying wolf helps no one: Readers sound off
