More on Obamacare, laws and clowns
This letter is in reply to Carl Christensen’s letter, which was a reply to my earlier letter to the editor in regard to Obamacare.
First, let’s define a “clown.” Oxford dictionary defines a clown as “a foolish or incompetent person.” Furthermore, it gives an example of the word’s usage: “we need a serious government, not a bunch of clowns.”
When I used the term “clowns” in my letter to the editor, I was referring to politicians of all parties. I never meant to include Mr. Christensen as one of the “clowns,” but he identifies himself as such in his reply when he writes, “I, as one of the clowns he references, would remind Mr. Jones of several points concerning laws.” If he considers himself a “clown,” that is absolutely fine with me; he does not need any assistance from me. The more clowns there are, the merrier the world.
Second, Mr. Christensen describes how laws can be amended, overturned, or changed and believes I “beclowned” myself “regarding laws,” thinking I know nothing about those processes.
There was not an argument in my writing regarding the evaluation or the survivability of Obamacare. I simply stated the fact: Obamacare is the law of the land. Whether it gets amended, overturned or changed in the future is up to the voters.
Conclusion: From Mr. Christensen’s letter, I learned nothing constructive or useful.
However, I did learn that he considers himself a “clown.” He said it himself. Borrowing his word, Mr. Christensen “beclowned” himself.