Red meat for the masses

At the last moment, I decided to watch a recent Republican presidential debate. As a political junkie, I had managed to avoid these events on account of my feeling that they were not speaking to me as an American voter.

After a few minutes I began to feel a knot in my stomach. Donald Trump, face puffy with a strong orange hue and his traditional bouffant hair, doubled down on his insults. He rolled his eyes in scorn of Jeb Bush, contorted his mouth into all kinds of messages and simply delighted “his” crowd. Ted Cruz, his superb academic bona fides notwithstanding, turned a grandstanding and simple-minded performance with promises to bomb them till the sand turned radioactive. Chris Christie declared he would shoot down a Russian plane “if it would fly into my no-fly zone” over Syria — never mind this could unleash a nuclear war.

I checked out the morning shows to see if their reaction was similar to mine — nope, they thought it was a great debate. There you go. The press loved the ratings and hooked their follow-up shows onto the bandwagon of the red meat clown car.

And on the early debate, Lindsey Graham, to the surprise of all, had the best performance of the night — he called out Trump and called out the entire field on their belligerence and intransigence. Imagine that: Lindsey, Mr. John McCain’s BFF in 2008. Enough red meat! Oh, how I will miss Mr. Obama!

Carlos Wysling

Bend

Easy access to guns

University of Texas in Austin, Texas. Columbine, Colorado. Virginia Tech, Virginia. Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Aurora, Colorado. Roseburg, Oregon. Colorado Springs, Colorado. San Bernardino, California. Who is next? Bend? Redmond? Sisters? Prineville? La Pine? Madras? Why not?

The conditions that made the first list possible exist everywhere in the United States — an incomprehensible and immeasurable proliferation of high-powered guns and many people with homicidal tendencies having easy access to whatever guns they want. Add to that politicians owned by the lobbying arm of the arms-manufacturing industries (the National Rifle Association) and nonsense spouted by pro-gun enthusiasts and these conditions will continue into the future. If the United States, as alleged, is the greatest nation in the history of the world or on the planet, why do tens of millions of Americans live in such fear that they feel they need high-powered guns to protect themselves?

Then there is the international dimension of a world awash in weapons and people prone to start wars. Vietnam. Laos. Cambodia. The Balkans. Panama. Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. Yemen. Syria. Who will be next? Iran? Russia? China? If President Barack Obama doesn’t decide in the next year, then it looks like that decision will be made by President Hillary Clinton or President Donald Trump.

Bill Bodden

Redmond

Weak coalition

President Obama continues to foist upon the American public his idea of a 65-member coalition of nations to fight the Islamic State group; or, as he and his minions refer to it, ISIL. What he’s failing to tell us is that there are but 13 nations carrying out airstrikes against ISIS. And that number will soon diminish to 12 because Canada’s prime minister has decided against them. Of all of the sorties flown against ISIS, the U.S. is responsible for 75 percent of them. Where are the other 52 members of this so-called coalition, and why aren’t they participating? Obama hasn’t told us.

Only 20 nations of this so-called coalition are sending ground troops to act as advisers to help in training. That makes me wonder: Why do the absent 45 nations get credit from Obama when they aren’t involved? And, the United States spent $500 million to train five Iraqi soldiers so they could fight the insurgents. That’s $100 million per recruit. I sincerely believe that is a gross waste of taxpayer dollars; but Obama never mentions this.

When Obama was running for office, he touted that his administration would be open and transparent. His concept of transparency is different than much of the American public’s.

John Sabo

Bend