This is Viewpoints for Monday, Jan. 9, 2017

Thanks for the warning

Everyone who reads the Viewpoints page regularly will agree that we seem to see the same names virtually every day. A small handful of writers seem to monopolize the Viewpoints page, and of course the editor lets them do it. I remember in the past, the Telegraph’s published rules limited writers to one letter a week. But now we see two or even three letters a week from some people.

This new year will be my year. I am not only going to join the ranks of those regulars, I am going to go head-to-head with them and compete for the most letters published. Get ready to watch your old buddy Mike blow all the old records away for 2017.

Just the facts

The column by commentator Leonard Pitts Jr., concludes that sometimes, there is really only one side to a story. His side, obviously, which he reveals earlier in the article. That’s a position suitable for the editorial page, correctly identified as opinion. He challenges media to discard objectivity when there is clearly only one side of a story that is “moral.” Of course, that position “assumes” that the media in America has the capability to correctly decide which side is “moral.” My dictionary defines “moral” as “of or concerned with the judgment principles of right or wrong in relation to human action and character.” Key words in this definition are “judgment,” “right” and “wrong.” Pitts wants media to make judgments about right and wrong and present only the “right” side as determined by them.

However, some people might prefer to be presented with the facts ( “Just the facts, Ma’am,” as Sgt. Friday would say), so they can make up their own minds about which side has the true moral high ground instead of letting someone else decide for them. Presenting objective facts is true journalism. Presenting only one side is opinion, often even propaganda.

There is no better way to observe this than to compare accounts of the same basic event by several different news sources, such as CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Fox News. I guarantee you will see significant differences as to what each source thinks is “moral.” So really, what Pitts is suggesting is already happening, but producing opposite results. So who do you trust? How about yourself? Sift through the propaganda for the facts and decide. Don’t be swayed by emotional language or even your own personal bias, which nearly all humans have, including me.

Personhood decision

A woman’s “right to choose” to privately do whatever they feel like doing with “their own body” allegedly protected by the U.S Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, will certainly be debated in the public arena under the new presidential administration. It kind of reminds me of an issue that captured the nation’s eye a few more than 100 years ago, that people had a constitutionally and state guaranteed “right” to do whatever they wanted to do with their privately held “property,” even if that property was imported from Africa. In both cases, the definition of “personhood” was the center of the debate, and the Supreme Court defended their constitutional legitimacies.

In the first case, the recognition of personhood of all people was finally settled by the Civil War, and was codified by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. We can only hope that the next step in codifying the recognition of the personhood of all people will not require the same bloodshed. Enough innocent blood has been shed as a result of that “right” already.

A different path

Rep. Allen Peake, R-Macon, wants medical cannabis and what else in Georgia? He proposes that the “citizens of the state decide to go down this path or not” through a 2018 referendum that would allow growing cannabis for medicinal purposes. With the dubious history of how Georgia state constitution amendments have been worded so citizens had little idea what they were voting for or against, how does Peake propose to fairly and completely inform the electorate?

The Legislature has the resources and the obligation to make decisions that are complex and difficult. The referendum sounds like a ploy to gain what Peake desires that is not supported by other elected officials and law enforcement groups.

Eating up the increase

This is in response to Ronald Cain’s letter. It is true that some individuals think Social Security is all they need for their retirement. There are some who cannot afford to establish an IRA or contribute to their employer’s 401k plan. There are others who have employers that do not offer a 401k plan. Therefore, it is important that these individuals begin to make plans for their future. In my letter I was expressing my opinion that Congress has mismanaged the Social Security trust fund.

Congress should pass legislation to protect the Social Security trust fund. Also, Congress should stop changing the factors that are used to calculate the Social Security cost of living adjustment. this practice enables them to either eliminate a COLA increase or fund a low COLA increase.

I did receive an increase in Social Security. But because the amount of my Medicare deduction was increased, I did not get an increase in my Social Security check. I am lucky, some individuals had a decrease in their check. Since I started receiving a Social Security check, my contribution to Medicare has doubled. If something is not done quickly, some Social Security recipients will have all or most of their benefit going to pay for their Medicare coverage.

Parking lot woes

Why can’t you have a new car in Macon without someone hitting it and not having the nerve to report it to the store where the car was hit? It does not take much to bend a fender in these new cars. Now we have a 2014 and a 2016 with a dent in each. It can happen to you. If you see something at least get the tag number and tell the store manger.

This story was originally published January 8, 2017 at 9:03 PM with the headline "This is Viewpoints for Monday, Jan. 9, 2017."