Column: Answers to some problems is providing greater assistance
Published 12:00 am Thursday, November 17, 2005
As I write this, I’m aware that it may snow tomorrow. I would rather it didn’t, which proves that I’m no longer young nor filled with a sense of adventure.
Someone once asked me why, since I didn’t like winter, I continued living in Minnesota. Simple. I like Minnesota.
I like the people in Minnesota, particularly the ones in Albert Lea. I even like the people who hate my column and write passionate letters to tell me so.
Email newsletter signup
I do wish, though, that the one or two who send me letters, usually anonymously, would stop accusing me of being a &8220;baby killer.&8221; I’ve never killed a baby in my life. I’ve never considered killing a baby nor approved of killing a baby.
I am baffled by the quaint notion that no abortions took place before the Rove v. Wade law was established. The anti-abortion party seems to feel that abortions are respectable only if the mother is killed or maimed in the process.
I heard the former President Jimmy Carter in an interview recently and it seemed to me he made sense. He has always disapproved of abortions but he feels that the number of abortions can be reduced through education and more support for needy families.
The people who most loudly call for an end to abortions are often the very ones who deplore welfare for families who are homeless, hungry and unable to find work.
I have heard it said that women have babies in order to get more welfare money. Anyone who thinks that should have the decency to inquire how much welfare is given per child and consider how much it improves the living standard of the recipient.
Corporations and factories move their operations out of the country to avoid paying their fair taxes. Illegal aliens are welcomed because they provide cheap labor.
When what was originally termed, &8220;Aid for Dependent Children,&8221; was established it was supposed to provide enough income so that mothers could stay home and look after their children.
Now mothers are expected to work out of the home. Very few satisfactory child-care centers are available.
Our public schools for the most part can’t afford the number of teachers necessary for the number of pupils and students needing them.
In the meantime, a number of children are deprived of a father or mother due to the growing tendency to involve this country in meaningless and provocative wars.
We are facing the Christmas holiday. In a way, it is a celebration centering on children. But gifts and goodies can never replace thoughtful and generous care.
Instead of building walls of guilt and criticism against those who are incapable of affording that care why not provide greater help and understanding for them?
Merely going along with what a leader holds out as a goal is not patriotism. It’s lack of interest in what is best for the country. Patriotism
is a dedicated desire to see that every citizen is provided for. Those given much should be happy to return much.
After all, it is seldom the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful that are asked to risk their lives on foreign battle fields.
(Love Cruikshank is an Albert Lea resident. Her column runs Thursday.)