Letters for February 20, 2014

Poisoned pen

Re “Block that Koch” (Notes from the Neon Babylon, Feb. 13):

Here’s a concrete reason to nix the XL pipeline: their abominable safety record. We all remember the BP debacle; what most people don’t remember is the pipeline break in Kalamazoo, Mich., at the same time. There was so much flap about BP, that the media spotlight never focused on Michigan, just kind waved in that general direction for a broadcast or two, as millions of gallons of oil trashed 30 miles of the river. This is the same pipeline the Keystone PR machine assures has been appropriately patched, and ready for a full load of that tar sands goo.

Rick Woods

Sparks

Hands off the Kochs

Re “Block that Koch” (Notes from the Neon Babylon, Feb. 13):

Will Bruce Van Dyke ever learn to write in a civil manner? To refer to the Koch brothers as “evil bastards” is simply outrageous, and if they weren’t public figures, he should be sued. No matter what his disagreement is with them, he would be more successful in his criticism of them with facts. What have they done that is either immoral or illegal? Make a profit and employ thousands of people? By the way, where does Van Dyke come up with the $100 billion profit if the pipeline were built? He’s got the pipe part correct, that figure is a pipe dream of his. Van Dyke is certainly entitled to his opinion of whether the Keystone pipeline would be good or bad for the country, but in his own statement regarding the pipeline he offers no facts other than that he obviously hates the Koch brothers and doesn’t even offer any reason for that opinion. I have no ax to grind on behalf of their business, but I do believe that this nation would be better off buying oil from Canada than from Mexico, Venezuela or the Middle East.

Fred Speckmann

Reno

The truth heals

Re “Hands off the Kochs” (Letters to the Editor, Feb. 20):

“Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” It’s the opinion page. To state that someone should be sued for voicing the opinion of “evil bastards” is hilarious, stupid, and reflects a certain lack of sophistication on the letter-writer’s part. See Amendment 1, U. S. Constitution.

Don Y. Evans

Reno

Editor’s note: For those confused by how someone is responding to a letter that hasn’t seen print yet, this discussion first took place on our website, where many letters are first published, only a few of which we edit for newsprint.

One-twelth stone

Re “The Organic Food Lie” (Feature story, Feb. 13):

Twelve times less? Really? In a most recent story you quoted a biochemist as saying some process was found to be “12 times less,” and I find that to be quite fanciful. I would hope that his education was better than that and what you printed was merely a misprint. Are you aware that there can never be anything less (not more) than one time. One time of anything is 100 percent! That is all of something. You can increase anything by 100 percent, that is doubling it. When you consume 100 percent of anything, it is completely gone, there is nothing less.

Fred Twigge

Reno

The Organic Food Cover Lie

Re “The Organic Food Lie” (Feature story, Feb. 13):

I was disappointed to see the cover of your newspaper. It states “The Organic Food Lie” in letters with veggies in them. Then I opened it and found the story was about bio-engineering food and attached it to liberal politics. Organic food has nothing to do with liberal politics. The cover does not match the article. My problem is that your cover creates a picture that organic food is not right. People will walk by and assume this just by looking at the cover and never reading the story. The organic food market is growing everyday for good reason. I shouldn’t have to explain that to you. If you are unaware go visit an organic farm or talk to a grower and find out. Regardless of your article, organic food is here to stay and more people are waking up everyday and deciding they don’t want unnecessary chemicals in their body.

Barry Burnham

Truckee, Calif.

Sign of the times

Re “The Organic Food Lie” (Feature story, Feb. 13):

It’s all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They do not care if you get sick or die from the ingestion of that crap. All they want is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Richard Earley

Reno

Save the children

Re “The Organic Food Lie” (Feature story, Feb. 13):

The writer proves in the last few paragraphs that some scientists are doing more harm than good. 500,000 children a year were dying from the Vitamin A deficiency before the modified grain and millions afterward. Come on, do the math.

Salisha Odum

Fallon

Editor’s note: How could millions of children have been killed by golden rice that, because of objections from transgenic critics, has never yet made it into the marketplace?

Vertical integration

Re “The Organic Food Lie” (Feature story, Feb. 13):

I was interested to learn that the Koch brothers control Canadian tar sands deposits. Months ago, Greg Palast reported that the Koch brothers own Gulf Coast refineries configured for processing Venezuelan oil. According to Palast, Canadian tar sands oil has characteristics similar to that of Venezuelan oil. It appears that the Koch brothers are at both ends of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Donald Schreiber

Incline Village

Walled garden

Re “Don’t fence it in” (Letters to the Editor, Feb. 6):

This is a response to the letter by Samuel Margolies about his mean-spirited, erroneous complaints. The fence may make no sense to him, but it does to the people caring for and protecting the Arboretum who have given much time and thought as to how to solve the problems arising there that are a threat to its safety and beauty. To say the fence is aesthetically ugly is his perception, and he would probably find the black wrought iron fences all around New Orleans ugly, also. To say this is an expensive boondoggle is not the case, as that would be a wasteful or impractical activity, and this fence is founded by practicality to save something of great value. For him to say he doesn’t see “hordes of homeless” camping in front doesn’t mean they are “phantom homeless.” They are deeper inside the park under trees and bushes, where their debris is left. This fence will not visually or physically restrict the public. They will simply go in the entrance to enjoy the beauty. Tagging, theft and other vandalism are occurring, and the fence will help in curtailing it. Solitary walkers and joggers do not want to be encountering criminals or homeless on the more remote trails. Homeless people may just be down on their luck, but some have mental instabilities and can frighten people, especially if they’re alone. Why does Margolies have to throw stones at the very people who are trying to protect a wonderful spot of beauty in our community? He should try to help, not hurt. He’s apparently angry because his view is changed, and he can’t do anything about it. What misplaced, hateful negativity.

Sharon Larson

Reno