The discussion of what is and isn’t possible

This letter is in response to Michael Kiley’s letter from Jan. 4. My entire life, the discussion of what is and isn’t possible has been dominated by people like Michael Kiley. We all know who they are: the middle- to upper-middle- class college educated professionals, bios filled with acronyms and degrees and qualifications that they use as a cudgel to beat down anyone who would dare to suggest or even hope that the status quo could be improved, however marginally. They stand on the sidelines, heckling and mocking and adding their voice to the overwhelming chorus of “very serious people,” who continually scream at us that nothing will ever change for the better, all the while enjoying a level of security and comfort that they continually work to deny to everyone else who is not them.

Here’s the thing, Mike. I would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are engaging in good faith critique if you actually engaged with the people doing the work. Instead, you wrote a letter that seems to be motivated entirely by an ego that was offended by the possibility that someone else is trying to succeed where you failed. What was the point of your letter? Do you want to deny the people of the Moreno Valley better healthcare? Should people in Eagle Nest be condemned to poor healthcare because we are a small, rural community?

If you want to offer your experience and expertise to help us improve the lives of people who could really use it, then I have no doubt your help would be more than welcome. But if all you have to offer is snide and elitist naysaying, keep your opinions to yourself and get the hell out of our way.