Citizens have reason to mistrust government

In the Saturday, May 9, edition of the Salisbury Post were two independent articles but both had a common underlying theme Scott Jenkins, the Salisbury Post news editor, missed. On the front page, the first article was titled “US launches its own investigation of Baltimore Police Dept.” and on page 5A was Mr. Jenkins’ obvious sarcastic jab titled “At Peril In Pineland?” Unrelated articles on widely separated incidents, but they underscore a fundamental rift in this country at this point in time that is summed up by a quote from Attorney General Loretta Lynch, stating: “We’re talking about generations, not only of mistrust, but generations of communities that feel very separated from government overall.”

Simply put, a very substantial portion of the citizens of this country, on both sides of the political spectrum, do not trust our government and for very good reason. Check out the IRS targeting select groups and the recent comments about the NSA for starters. A lot of people can truthfully state that they are not better off now than they were seven years ago.

The government policies we currently have represented in the White House does not inspire confidence or trust. When President Reagan was in office, I would have scoffed along with Mr. Jenkins at any idea our federal government would seek to take control of any state government, but now it seems very plausible.

Taxpaying American citizens have seen their civil liberties increasingly come under attack by the very government sworn to uphold them. Communities can no longer have set moral standards based on a shared set of values or beliefs because the federal courts sides with individuals who want to impose their beliefs on the majority. Yes, indeed, there is a very serious lack of public trust in our government on both sides.

— Charles Goodman

Salisbury

Prayer battle misguided

To our county commissioners on responding to the prayer lawsuit:

This is a complex issue — complex legally, religiously, and culturally. As a Christian whose faith is foremost in my life, as a Christian who has taught Sunday School classes, led ministries, served as a deacon, preached in several churches, participated in numerous missions, and prayed publicly in multiple settings; I hope you will listen beyond all the conflicting noise, and seek the broader picture. We’re fortunate that so far we’ve lost less than $5,000 in legal fees; but more importantly, from a Christian perspective, we’re fortunate that so far we’ve lost this prayer battle. Though well-meaning by those who followed it, this is not a fight we want to win. When we press a body to tell us we can pray, we are setting a legal precedence of a body that can tell us we cannot. It is our misguided challenges that are forcing the governing entities to outline our rules. We are toying with one of our most precious national freedoms.

This battle is not about standing up for God or about church vs. government. It is a dangerous political distraction that stems from the 1970s entangling of Christian fundamentalism with conservative politics, a marriage that is blinding and binding us from reflecting the Christ whose name we wear — a Christ of love, of caring for the least of these, of communing intimately with God, of gentleness of spirit and loving kindness for his/our neighbors that speak louder than words. I know you will think and pray privately before choosing your own personal position for what we all know might become another public fiasco. If you as a commission decide to appeal, you are likely to lose again, but that scenario is not the most frightening one.

— Kathy Vestal

Salisbury

Hood’s logic flawed

In his May 5th column, John Hood relied upon Bryan Caplan’s “The Myth of the Rational Voter” to show how common human errors in perception limit our ability to progress and develop as a society. Unfortunately, his argument has a basic logical flaw.

In his defense of a society of free human action and voluntary exchange, he bases his argument on a modern strain of research that demonstrates why such a society is incapable of producing the paradise he envisions. This research, behavioral economics, is the latest and most successful application of psychology and sociology to the economics terrain. While the work of Kahneman, Tversky, Thaler and Ariely is considered earth-shaking for economists (that produces Nobel Prizes!) much of the basic stance is old hat for other social sciences.

While Bryan Caplan has an interesting twist on behavioral economics in his four fallacies (each fallacy involves our failure to recognize the benefits of free markets), it is indeed an upside down world where research about the limits of human cognition is used to support the belief that voluntary action of free thinking rational individuals creates the ideal society. Before the appearance of behavioral economics, economists had it easy — assume everyone is rational and has access to perfect information and markets work perfectly. The research is more complicated now, and Hood has gotten a little tripped up.

As Hood points out in the first sentence of his article, he supports the idea of rational public policy and free markets. But he criticizes the construction of current public policy because he believes voters are irrational. He is left in the unenviable position of arguing individuals are perfectly rational when they engage in markets, but are perfectly irrational when they vote. It is a difficult position.

— Eric Hake

Salisbury

Tasteless cartoon

And to which scintillating mind at the Salisbury Post do we owe the utterly tasteless and despicable selection of the Mother’s Day political cartoon which ran Sunday (3D)? We realize that your political mindset tends to run to the right of Jesse Helms, but really?

— Dee Sink

Rockwell