Summit Daily letters: Knopf’s latest column full of spite
Knopf’s latest column full of spite
I was appalled at Susan Knopf’s latest essay “Holding down the masses” in the May 24 edition of the Summit Daily News. Not at her liberal views, some of which I agree with; and not for her admiration of Obama, who had many positive accomplishments. It is her loathing of anyone she deems to be part of the “right wing” which is so shocking. The thrust of her essay is a litany of all the evils she sees on the right; there is nothing good in these people (Remember Hillary’s “basket of deplorables?”).
First its “the right of white men to dominate women” concerning abortion. (I’m pro-abortion.) I guess she didn’t see the African-American female legislator in Louisiana who is pro-life or that the governor of Alabama who signed an anti-abortion bill is a woman, Kay Ivey, or that the governor of Louisiana who also signed an anti-abortion bill is a Democrat.
Her next target using name-calling is “prep school frat boy” Justice Kavanaugh who is guilty by “reliable accusations” of sexual abuse. But how can she then give Clinton a hall pass, which she does? No, not all of the women he engaged with believe it was consensual. Please read what Wikipedia says. Then of course there’s Trump: “the Mueller report demonstrates the president and his cronies are guilty of obstruction of justice.” Not exactly. Mueller said there were “difficult (legal) issues that would need to be resolved” to conclude that Trump committed obstruction. But the most shocking and offensive assertion she makes is to equate some on the right with terrorist Muslims: “These imans (the ones that promote terrorism) and fearful white, rich, right-wingers are the same.”
What? I had to read it several times to be sure this is what she wrote. It is. And frankly, I’m quite stunned that the Summit Daily would print such a spiteful article containing so many questionable assertions.
I have this advice: words are precious, they shouldn’t be wasted. Her entire screed could have been distilled to one sentence: “my side good, other side bad.” If that’s the black and white world that Ms. Knopf lives in, then I feel sorry for her — the spectacular mountain scapes and sunsets of Summit County must be lost on her.
Ms. Knopf seemed capable, at least once, of decent journalism; witness her article on car surfing in the county. It was enlightening and thought-provoking.
I do have one question for Ms. Knopf regarding this latest piece: was it a slip of the pen when you justified illegal immigration by stating “we all benefit when low wage workers do unskilled jobs we don’t want to do, housekeeper, groundskeeper, dishwasher,”? Given the tenor of this piece, I would have thought a sentiment like that would be ascribed to the “bad” side.
Ms. Knopf, you can do better than selected facts and as hominem attacks, surely. This country is desperate for dialogue and constructive criticism.
Abortion and the right to privacy
The Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 proved a critical step forward in the realm of women’s health. But it was far from a decisive ruling. And, according to the New York Times podcast, “The Daily,” Alabama’s heartbeat bill could finally overturn it. Roe v. Wade was hinged on the “right to privacy,” an inferred right that must be balanced against the government’s interest in protecting women’s health.
This is clearly known by the author of the heartbeat bill. In fact, he is aware of two things: the ruling in Roe v. Wade was strong enough in 1973, but would be fragile at best today, and that today’s conservatively leaning Supreme Court would likely overturn Roe v. Wade if the case were to be reintroduced.
Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill into legality in Alabama. And it has been promptly met with fierce opposition by women’s health care advocates, Planned Parenthood especially. Remember, based on Roe v. Wade this law is unconstitutional. So the fight will be taken to court, and in the current environment it is expected to see this disagreement reach the national Supreme Court. In short, it will become the heartbeat bill versus Roe v. Wade. And if everything goes according to Alabama’s plan, Roe v. Wade will be overturned for being legally weak.
Roe v. Wade is centered around the right to privacy. Protect that right and Roe v. Wade stands. But the right to privacy is a challenge to uphold based on privacy being difficult to define (though privacy in regards to choices in health care is easier). But one thing remains the same in any case: progress is never made by moving backwards. So spread the word about the strategy underway and that overturning Roe v. Wade is but a retroactive motion.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.