In response to the letter in this newspaper last week from William J. Langenberg, who took offense at what he assumed was me questioning the sanity of Jim Bertram, I would like to point out that what I was referring to is that Jim and his Party keep trotting out the same old policies, such as giving our tax money to corporations in the belief that they will create jobs with it, when there is no evidence that this has ever happened, as well as “balancing the budget” by cutting social and environmental programs. I was questioning the sanity of these practices, and not the sanity of the individuals involved.
That being said, there seems to be a double standard at play here. When Jim maligns my ability to think rationally, as he has done on a number of occasions, your correspondent did not step up to my defence. That doesn’t bother me, as I have learned to look after myself. However, I would like to point out another criticism that Jim has levelled at me, and that is that I should be an equal opportunity critic, so I would encourage your correspondent to consider doing the same.
Lastly, there is the observation that my letters are “long winded”. Maybe your correspondent hasn’t read much of Jim’s writings. The length of them often put mine to shame. However, this letter won’t be one of those.
As for you, Jim, my apologies to you if you interpreted what I said last week as impugning your sanity. That was not my intent. As for your politics, I am unrepentant on that score, and even though we have a very different opinion on governance, this is what democracy is all about, the free exchange of ideas.