:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/A2X4IZG5KVBOPMI5AM75RZT5HA.jpg)
This country could not care less about young people. Our politicians skew much older than the general population. Free health care, also known as Medicare, is age-restricted. Social Security payments are increasing by more than 8%.
We talk about ageism against people like Joe Biden and Donald Trump, but what about the ageism that led Nancy Pelosi as House speaker to refer to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” as the “Green Dream or whatever”? I hate to be the one to state the obvious, but Pelosi is almost guaranteed to no longer be with us in 40 years, whereas AOC and those of her age will very much be here.
Enough with pretending that older generations have not proved completely and utterly incapable of decisively resolving the economic and ecological disasters of the past decades. Enough with pretending that companies are magically entitled to gift 100% of their profit to shareholders, while the median income has been largely stagnant for five decades. Enough with ignoring the fact that Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed democratic socialist, is the legitimate political embodiment of young people, as evidenced by the fact that he received such a high percentage of the youth vote in Nevada and California in the 2020 primaries.
Accept the fact that the life expectancy in this country is approximately 77 years old. Accept relinquishing the wealth and political power to the younger generations so that they don’t have to wait for the older generations to expire. Accept that this country has shamefully failed its young people and likely the young people of the next several generations in not sustaining this planet and its future. Drop the ladder back down behind you for the younger generations as you claw your way to the top of this economic hellscape.
Otherwise, we will just have to wait until you die before we try to obtain the economic and ecological justice that was once your birthright and ought to be ours too.
— Ethan Feingold, Chicago
Doctor blinded to others’ reality
In his July 10 op-ed (“Justice Jackson’s statistic about Black infant mortality demands scrutiny”), Dr. Cory Franklin dismisses a peer-reviewed study that found that Black patients fare better when under the care of Black doctors. He says it was not a randomized clinical control trial.
However, such a study design would be inappropriate and unethical in this scenario. Ironically, Franklin’s “proof” against this study are his beliefs, thoughts and refusal to believe the data and conclusions. How might he explain away the nearly dozen other studies showing that Black patients have better health outcomes, lower maternal and infant mortality rates, and longer life expectancy; are more satisfied with their care; are more comfortable raising health issues; and are more likely to trust medical advice when treated by a Black physician? Ignoring facts because they go against what you believe is implicit bias.
Franklin also shows his privilege in that he is a medical insider and likely never had a physician who did not listen to him because of his race, sex, sexual orientation or religion. I agree that Franklin is colorblind: He willfully ignores the reality of racial medical disparities rooted in historic structural racism.
As Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote recently: “Those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room — the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential.”
The response to these studies should be to recruit more medical students from historically excluded communities, which would benefit patients.
Care of the patient is the most important aspect of medicine, a fact lost in Franklin’s essay.
— Craig Klugman, professor of bioethics, DePaul University, Chicago
Editorial board’s view of science
The Tribune Editorial Board writes in its July 7 editorial (“Government should not suppress speech on social media. The price is always too high.”) that “there is not one ‘science’ to trust.” Seriously? Does the board even understand what the word “science” means? It’s a process that involves careful investigations, peer review and enormous pressure to make sure that the evidence is there. As opposed to, in relation to COVID-19 specifically, conspiracy theories, which involve no investigation, no peer review and simple foolishness.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson put it, “The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.” Does the Tribune Editorial Board fail to understand that?
This editorial, dear editorial board people, was by no means your finest hour.
— Karlis Streips, Riga, Latvia
Not all speech is protected
The recent editorial “Government should not suppress speech on social media. The price is always too high.” has me wondering whether it is now OK to yell, “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Chicago Tribune Opinion
— Chuck Kessler, Northbrook
Sheriff’s office failed woman
Regarding the article “Wife got order of protection before being killed” in the July 7 edition: I am a “flatlander” by birth and education who continues to follow Chicago news via the Tribune. Having served 31 years as a Circuit Court judge (now retired) in Wisconsin, I know a bit about orders of protection.
The sheriff’s office offers a lame and wholly unacceptable excuse for failing to timely serve the order. Victims of domestic violence deserve much better from the system.
Let’s hope the judiciary in your great city takes the lead to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again.
— Michael J. Rosborough, Madison, Wisconsin
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.