The Feb. 15 editorial
TO THE EDITOR
Your editorial ("A free press, not a free-for-all," Feb. 15) was well done and most welcome. It would have been more responsible, however, if you acknowledged that there is as much rage and unreason on the left in our country as there is on the right.
Along with your examples of intolerance—attitudes toward Muslims and illegal immigrants, usually associated with conservatives—you could have added Black Lives Matter's hatred of the police (marchers chanting "Dead cops now" and throwing pieces of concrete at them) and the pockets of Islam where there is more than a whiff of misogyny and arranged marriages and female genital mutilation are advocated and even practiced.
We—all of us—are in a terrible mess, and the way to break our habits of hatred and irrationality begins with even-handed and fair-minded dialogue.
Yak, yak, yak
TO THE EDITOR
Another mass shooting. This time killing 17 students in Florida. Another call was made for stricter background checks and a few others that in no way impinge on the 2nd Amendment.
Once again the Republicans say this is no time to bring up talk on guns. So, on and on it goes and massacre after massacre happens.
Truth be told, more laws will not end mass murders with guns. The only real solution is to ban all high capacity military style assault rifles and all bullet clips holding more than seven shells held by anyone other than law enforcement or the military. The ban would end all sales of these items immediately and require all items held by the public be turned in to the ATF. Non-compliance would be a federal felony. Reimbursement would be made.
Democrats can argue for stricter laws and Republicans can continue to be shills for the NRA and mass shootings will continue until hell freezes over.
Twice in the 20th century, these types of weapons were barred from public ownership so it is useless to argue that this is a new thought or a "slippery slope."
There's a saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Wrong, "Guns kill people. Some more than others."
I'm a gun owner and I uphold the 2nd Amendment, but I see this as the only real solution.
Marvin L. Nelson
Advance directives in dementia
TO THE EDITOR
Advance directives are documents signed when we are of sound mind to inform those who will be taking care of us in the future—usually our power of attorney—how we want our finances handled and what we would want for medical care under particular circumstances.
Until now, there was no advance directive addressing one's preference for medical treatment when suffering from dementia.
The National Public Radio show "On Point" recently discussed a new advance directive form created to address one's wishes in the event of the development of dementia. Though not legally binding, it could be an invaluable guide to those making future health care decisions regarding the level of care you wish to receive in the event of the occurrence of mild, moderate or severe dementia.
There is no known cure for Alzheimer's disease or dementia. Over a period of five to 20 years, people with dementia: lose their memory and the ability to understand what is going on around them; may become aggressive, striking out at people they love; gradually lose the ability to speak, eat, and walk; and eventually die from the disease, often from dementia-related pneumonia.
Find "Health Directive for Dementia" at www.dementia-directive.org. Other advance directive forms may be found at https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/forms/advdirectives/adformspoa.htm.
Act now to do what you can to control your future care, save spending money on unnecessary medical care or avoidable legal costs, ease the burden for those making decisions for you in the event you are no longer able to make your own decisions, and bring everyone involved the peace of mind that your desires can be followed because they have been expressly communicated. Complete these forms and provide copies to the appropriate parties. If you need assistance, contact your local Aging/Senior Services Agency or your attorney for direction.