Your letters to the editor for Jan. 19, 2025:
Ignore what Donald Trump says and focus on what he does
Thinking back over the last couple of weeks looking ahead to the inauguration, the contrasts could not be starker and more dramatic: 1) the transfer of power after the 2020 national election and the 2024 election AND 2) the contrast between a president being laid to rest (Jimmy Carter) and one about to be sworn in (Donald Trump). Remember the shameful events of Jan 6, 2020, and compare it to the same period in 2024. Even trying to investigate what happened and who was accountable in 2020 was and continues to be controversial; yet both President Biden and Vice President Harris continue to demonstrate an overarching commitment to democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.
And then there’s the contrast between Carter and Trump.
Surely there were highs and lows in Carter’s presidency. The Iranian hostage crisis was a low point, but no one can argue the significance of the peace accords negotiated by Carter between Israel and Egypt. That was as unthinkable then as a two-state solution between Palestinians and Israel is now. And no one can argue the standard he set as a true humanitarian and public servant after his presidency. If there’s a comparable, it might be Herbert Hoover, but none is greater.
And then there’s Trump. Surely, he is the next president but there is no moral high ground that he or his apologists can claim in terms of his agenda, or the rhetoric used to advance it. OK, so you like his policies of taxes, deregulation, and immigration. He is still a narcissistic megalomaniac, infatuated with power — particularly his own. He is/was still a criminally indicted defendant in four different jurisdictions. OK, so you call it all conspiratorial witch hunts. There was a time when such a candidate would never have emerged as a presidential aspirant. There was a time when civil political discourse and discernment would never have suggested that the end justifies the means. But that’s been the norm with Trump’s MAGA minions. Consider everything you have had to look past, ignore, deny or hold your nose about concerning what Trump has done or said in the past. I don’t need to name them here.
Back to the comparison with Carter. Trump has already been ranting on social media about the nation’s flags flying at half-staff during his inauguration. He claims “Democrats are giddy” about it. What’s really at issue is it detracts from him being the center of attention. I continue to pray for our country and all its leaders, but here is the approach I’m taking going forward with President Trump (and I learned it from my MAGA friends): ignore what he says and focus on what he does, especially with the recent bombastic nonsense and name-calling related to Canada, Newfoundland, the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico and the California wildfires.
— Bill Kubat, Sioux Falls
Vaccines save lives — RFK Jr.’s leadership could endanger them
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump for Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an immensely important role ensuring the health and safety of all Americans. This nomination raises serious concerns among public health advocates, health care professionals, scientists and experts, and countless parents like us.
Childhood vaccination rates are dropping in South Dakota and nationwide thanks to a surge in vaccine misinformation. Even small decreases in vaccination rates can have devastating consequences for communities, especially for babies, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. Mr. Kennedy is responsible for spreading this misinformation, repeatedly questioning vaccine safety despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing that vaccines are one of the safest and most effective public health tools. His nonprofit, Children’s Health Defense, promotes baseless fears, undermining long-established science and revealing an unjustifiably aggressive stance against childhood vaccinations. His claims are in direct opposition to the facts: Rigorous testing and monitoring show that vaccines save millions of lives every year, reduce hospitalizations, and prevent life-long consequences from diseases like measles and polio.
If confirmed, Mr. Kennedy could weaken essential vaccine programs that provide access for uninsured and underinsured populations, reversing decades of progress in disease prevention. His rejection of vaccine science raises concerns about his ability to lead during public health emergencies, and his influence could limit life-saving vaccine innovation and national readiness for future crises. His leadership could fuel disinformation, erode confidence in proven interventions, and endanger public health.
The vast majority of Americans continue to immunize ourselves and our children, and we value the right to live, work, play, and learn in communities free from vaccine-preventable diseases. It’s time for the quiet majority to speak up. Grassroots vaccine advocacy is growing, led by parents, health care providers, community leaders, and lawmakers who champion vaccination. Together, we are growing a national pro-vaccine movement.
We urge the administration to reconsider this nomination. As our nation continues to recover from the human and economic costs of pandemic disease, and as we experience the return of measles, chicken pox, and whooping cough, HHS needs leadership rooted in science, evidence-based policy, and public health integrity. American lives are at stake.
— Allison Alvine, MD, director of the South Dakota Families for Vaccines, parent to 4 children, one who is immunocompromised, and Angie Wehrkamp, parent to 2 children, one who lost her life at the age of 2 1/2 to influenza
The tragic history of the US and Panama Canal
Dusty Johnson, South Dakota’s sole representative in the U.S. Congress, has stated he is sponsoring a bill to authorize Donald Trump to buy the Panama Canal “if he can get a good deal” (Argus Leader, 11 January 2025). Maybe Dusty needs a refresher course about the history behind the U.S. and its relationship to that body of water. I write “refresher course” because I know Dusty learned the tragic details of the U.S. manipulation of the canal zone when he was a student at USD.
In 1903, Panama was a province of the sovereign state of Colombia. Failed efforts to construct a trans-isthmian canal had left machinery and a partially dug channel waiting for completion. President Teddy Roosevelt authorized a low bid to buy the rights to the equipment and finish construction, which the Colombian Senate refused.
In response, Roosevelt sent a naval squadron armed with thousands of dollars in gold to bribe Colombian military leaders in Panama to declare independence. The coup took two days. The U.S. extended diplomatic recognition to the new “nation” of Panama and secured the rights to build the canal.
This was not a “one-off” U.S. coup. Look to our history in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, and elsewhere in Latin America and you may understand why so many of our neighbors mistrust us.
Dusty would serve us, his constituents, and our allies, the Panamanians, better if he sponsored legislation to help jointly fund the modernization of the canal as it faces a water crisis from climate change.
— Steven J. Bucklin, Ph. D., Professor Emeritus, Sioux Falls
The worst president since Nixon?
I was listening to a local media commentator talking about a recent Gallup poll published in a news story in Newsweek that indicates Joe Biden will go down as the worst president since Richard Nixon. Let’s take a minute to discuss this in just a little more detail.
Richard Nixon resigned the presidency at the behest of members of his own party back in 1973 because he covered up White House knowledge of a second-rate burglary on the campaign headquarters of George McGovern, a man he was to defeat soundly in the presidential election of 1972. The burglary took place on June 17, 1972. At the time of the break-in there was no chance that McGovern could prevail at the polls in November. Nothing about the burglary caused Nixon to receive more votes than he eventually did, nor did it cause any of the voters for McGovern to refrain from supporting their candidate.
Nixon went on the win in one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history. McGovern carried the commonwealth of Massachusetts and was awarded all the electoral votes. He also carried the District of Columbia. He didn’t even win South Dakota, a state that had elected him to the Senate for three terms after having served in the U.S. House of Representatives from South Dakota for two terms. The final electoral tally was 520 for Nixon and 17 for McGovern.
When the break-in was discovered, the ensuing investigation suggested Nixon and the White House may have had knowledge of it. When asked, Nixon denied knowledge of it. As did members of his White House staff. It cost him his job.
Nixon got us out of a war in Vietnam that had lingered for over 10 years and cost us 50,000 fatalities on a battlefield halfway around the globe for a cause that had little or nothing to do with American interests.
Nixon didn’t weaponize his DOJ to go after Lyndon Johnson, his predecessor, or McGovern. He didn’t peddle influence for hundreds of millions of dollars to a third rate country in eastern Europe or to our nation’s No. 1 economic and strategic enemy, nor did he cover up any mental or physical decline at the cost of world status. He was the president who opened the door for trade with China, which at the time seemed a good idea but has not panned out that well. Both our allies and enemies respected him. He did not open the southern border to allow the invasion of our sovereign (at least it was while Nixon was in charge) republic. He started the gradual withdrawal of combat troops from Vietnam and brokered peace talks with Hanoi. He did not pardon his child to prevent uncovering his involvement in a money laundering scandal which provided access to his position.
What Richard Nixon did could be deemed a game of tiddlywinks compared to the scandals of Joe Biden. Nixon did not curtail freedom by fear mongering during the throes of a pandemic. Richard Nixon’s performance certainly was disgraceful, although not quite as disgraceful as the media would like to make one believe today. I am certain he doesn’t even deserve to be considered a “good” president. But compared to Biden he could qualify for Mt. Rushmore.
— Randy Amundson, Sioux Falls
It is time to empower parents to protect kids against online dangers
Raising kids in today’s digital world is very different than it was when I was raising my children. As a mother and grandmother, I want to do what I can to help keep my grandchildren safe online. The rise in digital dependence brings with it a scary reality — our children need protection from inappropriate content and the potential risks to their safety.
The best way to protect our children is by strengthening parental rights and giving parents accessible resources to address the growing threat to kids online.
Sen. Mike Lee’s bill, the App Store Accountability Act, addresses the need to prioritize safety in the digital age. The new piece of legislation would require app stores to introduce parental authorization tools for children downloading apps. According to the Washington Examiner, “the legislation would require app stores such as Apple’s App Store and Google Play to verify the ages of users who are purchasing apps on their platforms.” In a world where harmful information is just clicks away, this extra guardrail would allow parents to take control over what children are exposed to online.
Unfortunately, the well-intentioned work of passing legislation to protect children has opened the door for Washington politicians to sneak in new regulations that would take power away from parents and give it to Washington bureaucrats to decide what is and is not safe for teens.
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is one of these bills. Originally intended to protect children, this bill has ballooned into something much more sinister. Instead of empowering parents and giving them the tools to protect their children, it gives the power to regulate speech online to unelected employees at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
These well-intentioned bills have also spiraled into liberal efforts to limit conservative speech. Giving the FTC the power to regulate speech would grant them the ability to censor voices and violate our First Amendment rights. The protection of children should not be used as a tool to take away our most important freedoms.
We should be advocating for the passage of legislation like the App Store Accountability Act. By putting the onus on app stores to empower parents, we avoid two major pitfalls that routinely stall these types of bills, like KOSA, from passing.
First, the App Store Accountability Act doesn’t violate our freedom of speech. Instead, it allows parents, not the government, to decide what is deemed safe and unsafe language and content. KOSA, on the other hand, gives this regulatory power to bureaucrats in Washington with no real regard for our kids here in South Dakota. It concerns me that speech unpopular with people in Washington would be unjustly repressed if KOSA were to pass in Congress.
Second, Sen. Lee’s bill empowers parents instead of the federal government. The measure would put parents in the driver’s seat and give them control over what their kid is able to view. I, not the government, knows how to best raise my children and grandchildren. Every time the government overreaches its power, politicians in D.C. take away the freedom of parents and grandparents like me to protect the ones I care about most.
As said in the Washington Examiner, “protecting children online isn’t solely the responsibility of governments or corporations — it requires collaboration from parents, educators, and society as a whole… As technology evolves, so must our strategies to ensure it serves as a tool for growth, not harm.” Any bill put forward in Congress must respect the agency of parents.
Sen. Lee’s bill empowers parents to do what they know is best for their children and serves as an alternative to the politically biased and overreaching legislation currently on the docket. I ask U.S. Sens. John Thune and Mike Rounds and Rep. Dusty Johnson to support this bill to enhance child safety in this digital age.
— Laurie Hummel, Richland
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Letters to the Editor for the week of Jan. 19
