Letters for October 5, 2006
Can the Democrats ever really matter again? Can they win? Can they do more than complain about the Republican agenda? Election season is in full swing, and the Dems apparently have a chance to take back the House and the Senate. All they have to do is … well, say something.
Say something other than, “We are against terrorists, too, but we want to be fair about it. We want a strong military too, but there are other priorities, so don’t pick on me. We can implement government programs without raising your taxes, and we know you don’t believe us.”
The notion that Democrats are “tax and spend” is a permanent part of our political landscape.
We won’t pay for things. America will pay for Bush’s war against Muslims without blinking an eye, but we don’t want to pay for better schools, better hospitals, publicly funded disease research, roads and bridges, global-warming prevention, Earth-friendly transportation.
We don’t want to be what we once were: World Leaders in the public sector, the best in science, the best in manufacturing, the best in education. American voters don’t want that anymore. What do we spend money on? Electronics, all built overseas, consumer gadgets of all types, all built overseas. None of that is investing in America. And yet our thinking is so twisted, we believe the Republicans are the more patriotic party.
But what could be more patriotic than building great schools, developing cures for diseases and preserving America’s resources, all of which will help ALL of us? And yet those priorities are considered “soft,” “liberal,” not patriotic like fighting wars.
And as long as Americans maintain that twisted idea of patriotism, Democrats will teeter on the edge of extinction.
Until we decide we love our country enough to make it work, to produce students who can read, cars that don’t pollute, cures that benefit all, until we get our heads out of our IPods and computers and decide that we are willing to spend what it takes to make America a proud place again, then yes, Democrats will always be dancing around what they are too afraid to say: “Quality costs money, people. Tax money. Not as much as destroying Iraq, but a proud nation costs money.”
Are we ready to hear that fact this election season? We’ll find out soon enough.
Denial rises with heat
In some court cases, particularly high-profile ones, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney hire so-called experts to help win their cases. Today, we have experts claiming that our Earth is in peril because of “global warming.” There also are many experts who refute this claim, but they get much less media attention.
From about 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D., we had the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1550 to 1850. Dr. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London stated, “During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone.” Go to www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4185.shtml for details.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated, “There is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them. … Climate change is a complex issue where simplification tends to lead to confusion, and where understanding requires thought and effort.”
Drs. Craig Idso and Keith Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at Tempe, Ariz., have conducted thousands of experiments. They have proven beyond any doubt that with more carbon dioxide in the air plants grow bigger and better in almost every way.
There is no solid scientific evidence to support global warming. Many distinguished scientists do not agree with global warming predictions. It would be tragic for our nation if we had to cut carbon dioxide emissions (like the Kyoto Accords Treaty demands) to cure a non-existing problem.
In the Sept. 28 editorial, we incorrectly stated, “Finally, the debate on this question has barely begun. It will take two votes of Nevadans to make it law. That means even your ‘yes’ vote can be second-thought in 2008.” That’s incorrect. Since it is a statutory initiative, if it passes, it will be law immediately. It’s like this, according to the Secretary of State’s Web site, “The Regulation of Marijuana initiative petition qualified for transmission to the 2005 Legislative Session. No action was taken by the Legislature within the 40 day period prescribed by Section 2 of Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution. The Regulation of Marijuana Initiative will be submitted to the voters at the 2006 General Election.”