Letters to the Editor | Oct. 4, 2024

I have a suggestion for all the Republicans who are outraged about fact-checking at debates: try telling the truth.

James Davis, Philadelphia

What else do you need to know? Both Donald Trump and JD Vance are strongly opposed to being fact-checked. They fear facts because their campaigns depend upon misinformation. Have we really fallen so far as a country that we would consider candidates for our highest offices whose campaigns rely on lies rather than facts? I hope not.

Arnie Cann, Philadelphia

While the debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz revealed differences between Republican and Democratic policy positions, it also did a disservice to viewers by assigning federal policy responsibility to vice presidents who have none, and implying that all policies, good or bad, are the province of the president. Both beliefs are wrong. This is a very bad civics lesson for viewers who don’t know how our government works.

Vance kept referring to policies he disagreed with by blaming “the Harris-Biden administration” and repeating the fact that Kamala Harris was in the White House and should have done something about the economy, climate change, gun violence, immigration, drug control, housing, health care, and more. He seems not to know that any vice president has no role in formulating policies; the president does that. The Constitution gives the VP just three jobs: breaking a tie vote in the Senate, certifying Electoral College votes, and replacing a dead or disabled president. The moderators know this fact, as well, but their questions still allow the belief that VPs have a policy role.

Secondly, the questions also imply that the administration can single-handedly fix the economy, immigration, health care, etc., which it has little power to do. The roles of Congress, the Federal Reserve, Big Business, lobbyists, etc., are omitted from the discussion. Such debates are harmful to American voters in giving them misinformation and incorrect expectations of their leaders.

Paul Selbst, Philadelphia

The Inquirer’s endorsement of Erin McClelland for state treasurer is mystifying. Treasurer Stacy Garrity set new records returning unclaimed property to hardworking Pennsylvanians. She cut fees for the PA 529 college savings program and the PA ABLE savings program for people with disabilities, saving Pennsylvania families $16.5 million.

McClelland made it painfully clear that, if elected, she will abandon our ally Israel at a time when the Jewish state is under unprecedented attack by foregoing the purchase of foreign bonds. Her temperament and conduct are so questionable that Gov. Josh Shapiro has chosen not to support her. Garrity has earned a reputation as a bipartisan warrior who fights for Pennsylvania taxpayers. She’s endorsed by both business organizations and unions like the Pennsylvania Teamsters and the Philadelphia Building Trades. The conclusion is simple: Stacy Garrity is the right choice for treasurer.

Eric Roe, county commissioner, Chester County

Pete Rose does not deserve induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. He didn’t deserve it during his lifetime, and he doesn’t deserve it posthumously. He bet on a game he claimed he loved and never accepted responsibility for his actions.

Some years ago, I attended a banquet where Rose was the guest speaker. The event was a fundraiser for a nonprofit supporting people with disabilities. Was his speech about people with disabilities? Or about baseball? No, it was not. Instead, he complained about being denied entry into the Hall of Fame. He portrayed himself as a victim. This behavior is reminiscent of another figure: Donald Trump. Both are examples of privileged individuals who have evaded accountability and do not merit accolades. Yet, people lined up after Rose’s speech, eager to take photos with him and shower him with admiration.

One day, Trump will pass away. Some will argue he deserves to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, choosing to overlook his disparagement of the military, incitement of an insurrection, and multiple criminal convictions. What has happened to the American conscience that we elevate and idolize such individuals? Is it too late to reclaim our moral integrity?

Marguerite Sexton, Philadelphia

Regarding the port workers strike, many people are demanding President Joe Biden intervene immediately. They seem to feel he can just snap his fingers and order everyone back to work by invoking the Taft-Hartley Act. That simply is not true. Here is the way it happened in 2002, the last time any president tried to intervene under the law.

President George W. Bush had to appoint a board of inquiry to see if the work stoppage posed a national emergency. Bush did that quickly, in one day, and the board concluded both sides would not be able to settle it “in a reasonable amount of time.” Bush then needed to have the attorney general file papers in federal court to discuss the matter and ask for an order for an 80-day cooling-off period. That was done very quickly.

Federal District Judge William Alsup issued a 10-day injunction and ordered that on Oct. 16, 2002, both sides should be in court to determine if the judge would impose the longer cooling-off period allowed under Taft-Hartley. The matter was settled before Oct. 16, so the 80-day injunction was never issued. Today, the public needs to know that if Biden chooses to intervene, he must go through a similar process, and those steps will take time. People demanding lightning-fast action need to know this.

David Lipton, Toms River

As addiction medicine physicians committed to improving care for patients with substance use disorders and to improving our community, we are deeply disappointed in the recent bills put forth in City Council to limit the use of mobile addiction services in Kensington. First and foremost, improving access to treatment and reducing the burden of untreated substance use disorders in Kensington means providing care that serves the needs of those who are struggling. Medication for opioid use disorder is the primary means of treating opioid addiction and a crucial first step in improving health and well-being. Medication treatment is the most powerful tool we have to save lives, and the growing consensus in the medical community is that rapid access to medication treatment is the priority.

Yet, much of the addiction treatment system in Philadelphia makes fast and consistent access to medication challenging. The system is complicated and difficult to navigate, and too often, there is a mismatch between the needs of patients — such as for housing, photo IDs, phones, and transportation — and the services delivered. And it’s very difficult to make appointments when you’re disabled by chronic wounds, only made worse by contamination from xylazine. Too often, this leaves the most vulnerable patients, many of whom are staying in Kensington, without the care and resources they need.

Mobile services, by contrast, are a critical entry point into care for people experiencing homelessness and addiction so common in Kensington. Many of the mobile services provide rapid access to lifesaving medication while also addressing immediate social and medical needs. Work from our group and others has shown that mobile units provide care for patients who have historically struggled to access addiction treatment. These are exactly the groups we need to serve to really get a handle on the crisis. Partnerships between health systems, community-based social service agencies, and outreach teams provide crucial wraparound support addressing the multifaceted needs of participants — addressing their medical and social needs at a one-stop shop.

Maggie Lowenstein and Judy Chertok, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.