Guest Commentary |
It was a terrible idea for Musk to become so heavily involved in government and politics


Is Musk too rich to go broke? Probably, but anyone can fail financially.


by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator




Elon Musk's wealth mainly comes from his ownership stakes in two companies: 1. Tesla – around 37% of his wealth is from Tesla stock, although it was as high as 75% in 2020. 2. SpaceX – valued contracts include a $20 billion deal with the United States federal government. He also earned money from selling PayPal to eBay for $1.5 billion in stock, receiving $175.8 million personally. His net worth is estimated to be around $424.7 billion but this varies from week to week depending on the stock market.

Other business ventures of Musk’s are Neuralink – brain machine interfaces and neurotechnology, The Boring Company - underground tunnels and infrastructure and

SolarCity which is solar energy, but was sold to Tesla in 2016. In 1995 Musk owned Zip2 which was an online content publishing company that was sold to Compaq. He also owns Starlink which is an internet constellation company.

No doubt Musk is a a true visionary, entrepreneur and one of the greatest geniuses of our era.

Musk is still a young man, born June 28, 1971. The world may be yet to see what he will achieve.

However, anyone can spread himself too thin. Obviously, he has a lot of great people working for him, but anyone can overdo their capabilities or overestimate themselves.

In my opinion, it was a terrible idea for Musk to become so heavily involved in government and politics. He makes billions from the government contracts with SpaceX. I think that is definitely a conflict of interest.

However, he is now out of his leadership role in Washington. After his temper tantrum last week and saying all kinds of dumb stuff about President Trump he probably won’t be returning to any leadership roles. He further over elevated himself and his role in Trump’s election.

This reminds us again of this truth: Intelligent geniuses can do and say stupid things. Throwing mud at President Trump on social media has made Musk look like a spoiled brat who has seemingly always gotten his way. Again, we are reminded, no one always gets his or her way in this life.

Is Musk too rich to go broke? Probably, but anyone can fail financially. Musk’s wealth is mostly tied up in stocks, making him “cash poor,” or having low liquidity. But with SpaceX capturing 70% of the global launch market, his financial downfall is unlikely. Unless, he continues to hurl ill-will at President Trump which could potentially cost Musk a lot.

The problem is that if the US cancelled its contracts with SpaceX, it could impact our manned missions to the International Space Station. New space projects like NASA’s Artemis moon program could be impacted. Dozens of NASA science programs would be affected plus the impact on national security as SpaceX provides critical space launch and communication services to the US military. These and other consequences could significantly affect the US space program and national security.

Trump, Musk and all the others on Capitol Hill need to work together for the common good of our nation. Musk has proven his genius and capabilities. However, his temper tantrum and verbiage last week make me wonder a bit as to just what he is really capable of doing in a moment of rage?


About the author ~

Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.


The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.



Guest commentary |
Why India’s youth must step into politics: Breaking barriers and building the future


Issues such as escalating unemployment, the deteriorating quality of education, environmental degradation, and increasing digital surveillance have direct implications for younger generations.


by Jahidul Hassan
     Guest Commentator


"Politics is not something to avoid. It is something to shape," said Barack Obama—words that ring especially true for India, home to the world’s largest youth population. With nearly 40% of Indians between the ages of 15 and 29, young people are uniquely positioned to reshape the country’s future.

Yet despite this demographic advantage, youth participation in Indian politics remains alarmingly low. From climate change and unemployment to digital governance and social justice, today's challenges require fresh ideas and active engagement. This article explores why political involvement among India’s youth is essential, what’s holding them back, and how they can take the lead.

Friends in India having a good time together
Young Indians need to invest more time into politics and governance through voting, protests, and local leadership.

India’s Youth: A Demographic Powerhouse

India’s young population represents a vast reservoir of potential. Their energy, creativity, and digital fluency can bring innovative solutions to complex issues. However, their voices are often missing from the formal political process. While youth drive trends on social media and lead protest movements, many stop short of entering politics formally.

According to recent studies, nearly 46% of young Indians express little or no interest in politics. Even among the engaged, disillusionment with traditional political parties is common. This disengagement is a cause for concern, as it suggests that future leaders may be absent from the decision-making table.

Why Are Young Indians Reluctant to Enter Politics?

Several barriers hinder formal youth participation in politics:

  • Dynastic politics: Many political parties favor family lineage over merit.
  • Financial hurdles: Campaigning and nomination costs are often unaffordable.
  • Perception of instability: Politics is rarely seen as a secure or viable career path.
  • Lack of civic education: Most schools and colleges fail to provide political literacy.

These factors combine to create an environment where political ambition among youth often goes unrealized.

Disengagement Comes at a Cost

The absence of youth in governance doesn’t mean politics ignores them. Issues like unemployment, education inequality, and environmental degradation affect young people directly. If they don’t participate, policies will continue to be made without their input.

This disengagement is evident in voting trends. According to the Election Commission of India’s Lok Sabha 2024 Atlas, the share of voters aged 18–29 fell from 25.37% in 2019 to 22.78% in 2024. States like Rajasthan saw a steep drop in voter turnout among 18–19-year-olds, from 76.7% in 2019 to about 60% in 2024.

Panchayati Raj: A Gateway to Grassroots Leadership

Despite national-level disengagement, some hopeful signs are emerging. Local politics, especially through Panchayati Raj institutions, offers a promising entry point for youth. In Assam’s recent Panchayat elections, a significant number of candidates were under 40, and nearly 60% were women.

Young leaders are leveraging their tech-savviness and local knowledge to improve services like sanitation, water management, and primary education. They are also involved in executing schemes like MGNREGA, which directly affect their communities.

Former Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal highlighted this shift at the 35th Regional Youth Parliament Competition, emphasizing the need for young people to preserve and promote Assam’s heritage through active governance.

Learning from History: India’s Youth Movements

Youth have historically led transformative movements in India:

  • The Chipko Movement for forest conservation
  • Jayprakash Narayan’s Total Revolution
  • The Anti-Mandal protests and Bihar student movement
  • More recently, the anti-CAA demonstrations

These examples show that when mobilized, young people can drive change at every level.

Creating a Culture of Political Engagement

To unlock youth potential in governance, systemic change is needed. This includes:

  • Transparent political recruitment: Parties must prioritize competence over legacy.
  • Financial support: Scholarships or grants for political aspirants can ease entry barriers.
  • Civic education: Schools and colleges should offer practical lessons in political systems and leadership.
  • Youth platforms: Initiatives like mock parliaments and civic fellowships can cultivate future leaders.

National Youth Day, celebrated in honor of Swami Vivekananda, underscores the role of young people in shaping India’s destiny. Government initiatives like the National Youth Policy and National Youth Parliament aim to build capacity and leadership among India’s emerging voters and visionaries.

The Road Ahead: Youth as Changemakers

Ultimately, youth participation in politics is not just about age—it’s about perspective, innovation, and the will to build a more inclusive India. In states like Assam, where challenges such as unemployment and ethnic tensions persist, the need for active youth leadership is even more urgent.

The recent rise in young Panchayat candidates signals a shift, but much remains to be done. Young Indians must go beyond protest and advocacy to step into roles as elected leaders and policy architects.

India’s future won’t be built for the youth—it must be built by them.


Jahidul Hassan is a research student at Darul Huda Islamic University in Kerala, India. In his leisure time he likes to talk to friends and travel. If given to fly anywhere in the world first class, it would be to Switzerland.

Commentary |
Six ways Trump's budget will damage rural Americans' way of life


Republicans in Congress are jamming through a sweeping bill to fund handouts to the rich - at the cost of jobs, health care, and food in rural America.

Rural American farm at sunset
Photo: Jakob Owens/Unsplash
by Michael Chameides
      OtherWords

Right now, Congress is working on a giant, fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

As the Communications and Policy Director for the Rural Democracy Initiative, I’ve been hearing from rural leaders across the country about the devastating impacts this bill would have.

The good news is it’s not too late. But there’s little time to spare.

This dangerous, unpopular bill would increase costs for rural working families by thousands of dollars per year, leaving millions hungry and without health care — all to provide tax breaks and handouts to the wealthy and special interests.

Here are just six of the worst provisions.

1. It guts rural healthcare.

The bill would drastically cut Medicaid and impose new barriers to care. It would take healthcare away from 13.8 million Americans and increase the cost for millions more. In some states, 50 percent of rural children get healthcare from Medicaid. Millions more rely on access to clinics and hospitals that would likely close because of these cuts.

2. It takes food off the tables of rural people.

The plan includes approximately $290-$319 billion in cuts to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps) even as the cost of groceries continues to escalate. More than 15 percent of families in small towns and rural areas rely on this support to feed their families.

3. It shifts costs to states and local governments.

State and local governments in rural areas depend more on federal funding from programs like SNAP and Medicaid than other states. Slashing federal funding to states would create new burdens for rural states that are already struggling to provide critical public services like health care, transportation, and emergency response services to local communities.

4. It takes away local control.

Landowners have fought to stop the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines by passing bans and moratoria, as well as enacting county setbacks and safety requirements to protect their communities.

But this bill would overrule state and local laws and ordinances, override local voices, and deprive residents of a fair opportunity to evaluate the adverse impacts of pipelines. It also sets up a “pay to play” system under which companies can simply pay for pipeline, mining, and drilling permits — and avoid public comment and legal challenges.

5. It ends clean energy and infrastructure funding.

The bill would phase out existing tax credits for wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing. It would also take away $262 million in funding for energy efficiency and conservation grants as well as transportation infrastructure.

Ending these tax credits will increase household energy costs, which are already higher in many rural communities. These changes would also reduce new clean energy projects — and jeopardize billions in rural investments in clean energy manufacturing.

6. It gives handouts to agribusiness and mega farms.

Leaders in Congress are using the budget reconciliation process to give big farms a $50 billion windfall. Add the heightened pressures and instability caused by the Trump administration’s erratic trade policy and more family farmers would lose their farms — while Big Ag consolidates more of the market.

In short, this bill would make it harder for rural people to meet their basic needs — all so the wealthy and corporations can avoid paying their fair share of taxes like the rest of us do.

Lawmakers have already heard from the giant corporations who helped write the bill. Now, they need to hear from the rest of us. It’s up to us to alert our communities and tell our lawmakers: Don’t sell rural America out to big corporations and the wealthy.


Michael Chameides is the Communications and Policy Director for the Rural Democracy Initiative. A longer version of this op-ed was originally published by Barn Raiser. This version was distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.





Op-Ed |
New study reveals obesity ages individuals by 27 years


Findings highlight wide-ranging health impacts and alarming cost implications

by Patty Starr
President and CEO, Health Action Council

Newly released claims data from more than 220,000 people reveal the latest evidence on the role obesity plays in health and health care costs, underpinning the need for supportive measures and interventions.

The new study, which analyzed Health Action Council (HAC) members with health plans administered by UnitedHealthcare, found that people with obesity cost their employers 2.3 times more than those without the condition and paid 66% more out-of-pocket ($662) per year than their peers without obesity. Notably, Millennials with obesity incurred over 8% higher per member per month (PMPM) costs than Baby Boomers without obesity who were 27 years older, due to the increased likelihood of chronic condition diagnoses.

Multifaceted health consequences

Comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and musculoskeletal issues were major cost drivers. The more comorbidities a person with obesity experienced, the higher their costs became. Obesity significantly increased the risk of various cancers, including breast, colon, rectum, and upper stomach cancers, and increased the risks for anxiety, substance use disorders, and depression.

Obesity among women of childbearing age

The report highlighted a 19-percentage-point rise in obesity rates between Gen Z women (9%) and Millennial women (28%), the largest generation in today’s workforce. This was particularly concerning due to the heightened maternal mortality risks and mental health issues associated with obesity.

The ripple effect on children

Children of parents with obesity are generally twice as likely to develop the condition themselves, but this risk tripled for children of HAC members if at least one parent had obesity. These children were also 44% more likely to experience depression, 39% more likely to have ADHD, and had higher rates of developmental disorders, asthma and diabetes.

Whole person weight management solutions

Effective strategies will require more than GLP-1s, which are unlikely to meaningfully impact obesity rates due to their high costs and low compliance rates. Consistent with the Food and Drug Administration’s label, these medications should be used in tandem with a life-style modification program for the treatment of obesity.

Strategies for employers

Following are a few steps employers can take to build a healthier workplace culture.
  • Understand your population. Analyze claims to determine the percentage of your workforce and dependents impacted by obesity. Identify prevalence, most impacted groups, as well as other health risks and social drivers of health.
  • Foster a healthy environment. Encourage a positive relationship with food, activity, and stress management by offering classes on exercise, nutrition, and mindfulness and providing non-processed foods at meetings, events, and in common areas. Encourage daily physical activity, less screen time, and quality sleep.
  • Offer comprehensive health solutions. Implement wellness solutions that integrate whole-person health by providing access to virtual providers such as network dietitians, digital health tools like mental health apps, and wearable technologies such as continuous glucose monitors.


About the author ~

Patty Starr, CEO of Health Action Council
Patty Starr is President and CEO of Health Action Council and is responsible for driving the strategic direction of the organization--build stronger, healthier communities where business can thrive.

Guest Commentary |
Tariffs, the goose, the gander and the American dream

by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator


Let’s give the tariffs time to work. I’m as anxious as you are since everything I have is tied to the stock market. If the stock market dies, I will be working or starving the rest of my life. Let’s hope things settle down soon. I believe they will and will grow even bigger.

The tariffs make sense. If China charges us a 25% tariff, then it’s only fair that we charge them one. The same goes for Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and all the others. If they want to charge us 40% then it’s only fair that we charge them the same. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Higher prices will come for a while. Car dealerships have seen a lot more people trying to make their deals before all the tariffs are tacked onto the prices.

People are worried about buying cheap stuff from China at Walmart or any other country. I honestly don’t want stuff from China. If China never ships another thing here it wouldn’t bother me. Sadly, everything I own today is, in some way, likely tied to a foreign country.

When I was a kid, I had a transistor radio made in Hong Kong. I thought it was funny to have such an item made from so far away. Throughout the years it became the norm. Cars, televisions, furniture, appliances and steel started coming from other places. Sadly, our American manufacturers were moving to Mexico, or any country on the planet where they could find slave labor. This turned into big profit for them because they shipped the goods cheaply back to the United States and made big profits.


We need jobs to come back to America.

The problem was that those jobs were forever lost in America. The American workers had to go out and find jobs at Walmart and Starbucks making $10 an hour which today is more like $15 to $18. They had been used to making $35 or $40 an hour before their job moved out of America.

People are crying today about what might happen to the prices at Walmart. Unfortunately, that’s all Americans can afford today is Walmart. Americans are so poor that we have to rely on Dollar General Store or Walmart.

Back in the fifties, sixties and even seventies people could go to one of the big cities in their state and find a good paying manufacturing job. There were lots of jobs. We made a lot of cars, televisions, radios, clothes, furniture, steel, lumber, and had coal mining and much more. These people made enough money to buy a house, buy two cars, buy food, raise their kids and have a real retirement after working 30 years. That was called the American dream.

Today the American dream is applying for disabled Social Security and then praying that you can afford to go to Walmart. Don’t even think about buying a new car, a new house or taking a vacation because on today’s income it is not going to happen.

Let’s try to keep breathing and see how these tariffs play out. We need jobs to come back to America. We need our own companies to come home. We need to buy our own American steel and make things here once again. If other countries will come to America and build their products here and hire our people that will be a good thing.

Just maybe, in a few years, once again, people in America will dream again.


About the author ~

Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.


The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.



This might also interest you:


Editorial |
Which candidate do we endorse for president? We're not the marrying type

During the 2016 election, only 20 papers endorsed Donald Trump's candidacy. Hillary Clinton received 243 endorsements from daily newspapers. Just six weekly papers endorsed Trump’s first run, while Clinton received support from 148. However, the endorsements had no measurable effect on the outcome. Clinton, who lost the election in the Electoral College, had 2.9 million more votes nationwide than her opponent, a margin of 2.1% of total votes cast.

"In 2016, nearly every newspaper in America endorsed Hillary Clinton. Obviously, the endorsements of Clinton did not lead to her victory, but it was a reflection of a widespread belief that Trump was unfit for office," David Mindich told Temple Now. Mindich is a professor of journalism at Temple’s Klein College of Media and Communication.

Last week, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, two of America’s most prominent newspapers, broke with the longstanding tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate. The owners of both newspapers forbade their editorial staffs from selecting and endorsing the candidate they deemed best suited to lead the United States.

Newspaper endorsements of political candidates date back to before the 1830s. Newspapers were once partisan tools owned or funded by politicians themselves to disseminate political views and give endorsements. That changed with the rise of the independent press.

"After the commercial press in the United States was born in the 1830s, newspapers started to become independent. The leading newspaper of the so-called penny press era was the New York Herald, run by an editor named James Gordon Bennett," Mindich said. "From the inception of his paper to the American Civil War, Bennett endorsed candidates from both major parties. Endorsements became a regular feature of independent American newspapers."

Melita Garza, associate professor and director of graduate studies in journalism at the University of Illinois, said, "There is little empirical evidence that these presidential endorsements swayed readers to vote one way or another."

There is speculation that C-suite executives feared backlash and subscription cancellations from readers angered by a particular endorsement. Garza notes that journalists on the ground are ultimately the ones who suffer.

"The only people hurt by the cancellation were the journalists, who probably will face another round of layoffs," she said.

However, another likely reason for the abstinence from endorsements is the increasingly hostile climate created by conservative politicians and their social media agents. It is rare, if not unheard of, for liberal politicians to threaten media outlets or employees. Meanwhile, Trump has made numerous threats aimed at journalists and publishers. The fear of retaliation if he takes office runs deep not only among the billionaire owners of America’s largest news organizations but also among independent community publications that challenge or criticize him.

In 2022, at a Texas rally, Trump said he would jail reporters and “marry them to a prisoner” if they did not reveal confidential sources for stories he didn’t approve—a clear violation of the First Amendment. He repeated this stance weeks later at a rally in Ohio.

While newsrooms and editorial boards are often operated as separate departments or even entities within a newspaper, readers may not understand the distinction between an editorial and a news article.

News articles state facts, answering the questions of who, what, when, where, why, and sometimes how. The purpose is to provide a clear, accurate account of an event as observed by the reporter or witnesses.

Editorials (and editorial columns) express opinions and viewpoints—right or wrong—by the publication’s editorial board. The objective is to present a perspective or stance and persuade readers toward that stance. Commentaries have the same purpose but are written by individuals not employed by the paper.

All that said, the editorial staff at The Sentinel agrees that the best candidate to lead the United States into the future would be one not leading a party that threatens the bodily autonomy of women, the freedom of the press, and economic recovery now in full effect. However, we won’t be endorsing either candidate because, as they say, we aren’t the marrying type.



Commentary |Trump's second assassination attempt is shocking, but attempts on presidents' lives are not rare in US history

by Shannon Bow O'Brien
    The University of Texas at Austin



Former President Donald Trump survived his second assassination attempt on Sept. 15, 2024, marking the latest chapter in a long history book. Presidential assassination attempts, whether successful or not, are fairly commonplace in American history.

There have been 45 men elected president since the country’s founding. And 40% of them have experienced known attempts on their lives. Four presidents – Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy – have been assassinated.

Image: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay
While Trump and Theodore Roosevelt were both former presidents when they were shot, Ronald Reagan was injured while in office, with a would-be assassin almost ending Reagan’s life in 1981.

Thirteen others – Andrew Jackson, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden – have had known plots or failed attempts to end their lives.

Many were subject to multiple attempts, and it is likely the public was never informed of other attempts upon them or other presidents.

Presidents symbolize the ideals of ourselves as Americans. They often act as the physical embodiment of our country, their political party and its values. When individuals are unhappy with the United States or its policies, some choose to express their opinions in violent ways. Those who choose to assassinate a president inadvertently humanize the very presidents they want to kill.



A common thread

Every presidential assassination or attempt has been made with a firearm. With the exception of Gerald Ford’s two attempted assassins, all the perpetrators have been male.

This includes Trump’s two assailants, men who were once enthralled by but seemingly grew disenchanted with aspects of modern politics.

The Secret Service thwarted an armed man hiding at a Trump golf course in Palm Beach, Florida, on Sept. 15. The Secret Service fired at the person, who fled in a car before he was apprehended and arrested.

This came just two months after Trump was wounded at a Pennsylvania rally on July 13 by a young man who attempted to kill Trump with a gunshot to the head.

Many presidential assassination attempts seem incoherent to anyone except the perpetrator.

A man named Charles Guiteau killed Garfield in 1881 because he wanted to be awarded a patronage position in government.

John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln as part of a larger plot attempting to create chaos to help reignite the “Southern cause” and support for slavery. On the same night Lincoln was killed in 1865, his secretary of state, William Seward, was attacked but survived.

At the same time, the plot was for then-Vice President Andrew Johnson to also be killed by another man, George Atzerodt, who instead got drunk and threw the knife in a gutter.

Booth and his co-conspirators hoped that these politicians’ almost simultaneous deaths would throw the Union into disarray, with an unclear path of succession. Their plan fell apart, and with Johnson alive, the nation’s clear path of presidential succession remained intact.

A near miss

Half a century later, while former President Theodore Roosevelt was campaigning for a third presidential term in 1912, he was shot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Though he was shot at almost point-blank range, Roosevelt was, in a way, saved by his poor eyesight and long-winded nature. Roosevelt had a 50-page speech folded in his pocket, as well as his steel eyeglass case. Both items slowed the bullet enough that it just entered his chest but not deeper than the muscle.

Roosevelt famously proceeded to give a 90-minute speech before leaving for the hospital.

One of the closest comparisons to Trump’s two recent assassination attempts is when two women tried to kill President Gerald Ford in September 1975.

Both Trump and Ford were the targets of well-publicized assassination attempts within a short period of time, and both were targeted by individuals with logically unclear motives.

Lynnette “Squeaky” Fromme, a one-time member of the Manson family, a well-known cult in the 1970s, attempted to kill Ford in order, she claimed, to save California redwood trees.

At the time, the Environmental Protection Agency was warning people about worsening smog’s effects on the environment, leading her to believe assassination was the only way to preserve the trees. Fromme dressed entirely in red, went to Sacramento where the president was visiting, aimed and fired at him within a 2-foot range.

Except the gun didn’t fire.

Bystanders heard a click, since she had not put a round in the chamber, likely because she did not know much about guns. After that first attempted shot, Secret Service intervened. Later, Fromme claimed she did not want to shoot the president.

Seventeen days later, on Sept. 22 in San Francisco, Sara Jane Moore shot at Ford from about 40 feet away and missed. Her second shot missed as well, this time because a bystander, Oliver Sipple, grabbed the gun, forcing the shot to go wide, injuring a taxi driver.

Finally, Reagan survived an assassination attempt by John Hinckley Jr. on March 30, 1981. Hinckley was obsessed with the popular film “Taxi Driver” and, in particular, the character played by actress Jodie Foster.

He believed that if he could impress Foster, she would date him. As Reagan left the Washington Hilton hotel, Hinckley fired six shots in two seconds. One shot deflected off the car and into the president’s left side, hitting his lung. One of the funnier lines Reagan would later repeat was born that day, when he looked at doctors prepping for surgery and said, “I just hope you’re Republicans.” One doctor replied, “Today, Mr. President, we’re all Republicans.”

The best and worst of us

Throughout history, American presidents and occasionally candidates have been targeted by gunmen and other potential attackers to express their unhappiness about the government. The rationales for these assassins’ actions vary from simply chaos to delusions anointing the assassin, or would-be assassin, a heroic main character.

Presidential assassinations reflect the best and the worst of people simultaneously. The violence itself shows the worst of society, but Americans often seem at their best in the aftermath. Like Reagan’s surgeons once recognized, politics should never supplant humanity or be more valued than a person’s health and safety.The Conversation


Shannon Bow O'Brien is an Associate Professor of Instruction at The University of Texas at Austin.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.




More Sentinel Stories