OPINION: Calling for debate

I found Wednesday Dec 30th Editorial “Try this resolution on for size” quite interesting. It took reading it three times and I’m still not sure I understand the entire gist of the article. The opinion concluded with blaming the public as consumers of cable news for our divided society. I’m assuming (dangerous thing) the author wants us to rely totally on local news, publications, newspapers, and public discourse to solve our differences. This would be nice if we could depend on local news, publications, and newspapers to report/print the facts and not their version of the truth. Is the author suggesting we bury our heads in the sand and sing “kumbaya”? I don’t think so, but limiting news sources would be similar.

A perfect example of dishonest disclosure at the local level is Dr. David Adler’s constitutional presentations at our local library. If you research Dr. Adler, you will find him to be extreme left leaning in his opinions and doctrine. He could be easily compared to Obama’s liberal/progressive appointments to the Supreme Court.

I absolutely agree with the author that open discourse would enlighten everyone. I suggest having Dr. Adler debate an equally qualified conservative scholar on the Bill of Rights especially the 1st, 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments with supporting documentary evidence.

JERRY G. WEAVER

Coeur d’Alene