Opinion
Editorial: We Need Jobs, Not Tax Rebates

Guest Column: Trust Keeps Byway Looking Scenic

Letters to the Editor

Editorial: Congress Could Use a Pep Talk

Editorial: Get Familiar With Strict DWI Laws

Letters to the Editor

Editorial: Treasurer Has A Duty To Fill

Editorial: A Little Effort Can Help Kids in School

Guest View: Trinity Effects Re-Evaluated

Letters to the Editor

More
Opinion

HOME	CLASSIFIEDS	OBITUARIES	SPORTS	OPINION

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Letters to the Editor



      Your Missives Are Uninformed
HAVING READ MANY LETTERS from Ms. Walsh over the years I have come to expect letters consisting of misinformation, outrageous and amusing assertions, a total lack of logic, and on the whole, a demonstrated lack of understanding of history, the affairs of state, simple economics and business. Her letter of 3 July was over the top, and I felt I must respond. I feel I am qualified to offer a reasonable response. ...
    I will attempt to address her letter of 3 July point by point.
    "The Iraq war is a horrible war crime. ... It was about oil."
    Firstly, I do not disagree that the Iraq war is horrible; they all are. I have not seen a war that was not. It was not however a war crime. That said, to say the Iraq war was about oil is a vast oversimplification of the situation. Oil was certainly a major factor, but the threat to freedom of commerce in vital natural resources, President Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of criminal and terrorist organizations, and a moral obligation to remove a particularly cruel despot were also important factors. Additionally, there was some evidence, of which I can personally attest, of a program to produce weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Because we have not found a "smoking gun" does not by any means indicate it was not there at one time. Saddam's government had a habit of burying their most valuable assets in the desert, including whole aircraft. Of course this inability to find mass media-suitable evidence has resulted in a cacophony of accusations of lies, etc. ...
    The administration and the Congress (via their approval of funding measures) decided to go to war after a complex decision process. In the final analysis, we elect our president and our Congress to make those decisions on our behalf. Quite probably Ms. Walsh did not vote for anyone presently in office, but a majority of Americans did. I would suggest that those who do not agree with the course of action that was undertaken to do something about it in this next election cycle.
    Secondly, energy is a national security issue vital to our country's interest no matter how distasteful that may be. We should not be ashamed of that. It is a fact. A war fought for long-term security goals, security of free commerce in vital resources, and for the regime change of a despot is not a crime as long as it is fought according to the generally accepted Laws of War. ... As a matter of fact, I would challenge Ms. Walsh to name one major war in American history that was not fought for one of these reasons. Our country's national security is worth fighting for and keeping the fight far away is in our best interests.
    Finally, because most Americans do not agree with the war does not make it a "war crime." It does however make it sad and unpopular.
    "This country is being run by corporations. ..."
    Firstly, the founders set this nation up under a Constitution. You, I, Ms. Walsh and all other citizens decide who will run this country through the ballot box. We don't always like the decisions made by our elected officials, but they are elected by us and we can take their jobs away either at the ballot box or through legal means as the situation dictates. The Constitution and the body of law make this possible. Corporations do not rule, in spite of some problems with lobbying. I do agree those problems should be addressed, but lobbyists have their place in providing information to representative government. All effective groups, including the Green Party, have lobbyists.
    Secondly, although corporations many times have an effect greater than they should, there are checks and balances built into the system to counter those instances. Honest government officials, and the vast majority are, administer our country. The buck ultimately stops with all of us who vote. The rest have no say ... and they should not.
    "The war in Afghanistan is not defending our country. ..."
    The heart of radical Islam (radical Islam's long-term goal of a worldwide caliphate is a central tenet) is in that region. Radical Islam is not to be negotiated with. ... It must be eliminated by any means possible. This is a "must do" for the rest of us, including our friends living under moderate Islam. Radical Islam is a cancer, and it has been treated as such (unless one desires to live under the Shia law. ... I am fairly sure you would not like that Ms. Walsh, especially since you would have been imprisoned, or more likely executed, for your letters a long time ago).
    "He (Osama bin Laden) is just an excuse. ..."
    Please see my point above concerning radical Islam. Additionally, Osama bin Laden is probably the best "excuse" imaginable, and I for one make no apologies for my desire to see his head on a pole.
    "The war on drugs is a complete failure. ..."
    There are many opinions with great merit on both sides of this issue; however, I think most will agree that unfettered, no-penalty access to drugs is wrongheaded. A good program of rehabilitation for drug abusers and the annihilation of drug smugglers and drug lords, wherever they are, would be a good start.
    "France has the best health care in the world. It's free ... ."
    There is not a free service of any kind anywhere. Not free medical care, not free education, not mandatory paid vacations, not in France, not anywhere. Someone always pays. This is a good deal if you pay little or no taxes. For the average taxpayer, social welfare and wealth redistribution schemes are not efficient and are an incredible burden on a nation's economy. ...
    Hard work should bring rewards. "Existing" does not entitle a person to anything in the way of free education, health care, paid vacations and so on. I really must question Ms. Walsh's apparent concept of work versus reward. Obviously there must be a basic safety net for those in trouble, but that is where it should stop.
    I would invite Ms. Walsh to spend some of her time reading some serious news and diplomatic journals and make an effort to hear both sides. Taking as gospel the conspiracy theorists and the radical left-wing blogosphere will get you nowhere. ... And people reject your missives out of hand as silly and uninformed.
    RIK THOMPSON
    Edgewood
   
    Wind Objections Don't Add Up
SCOTT BROOKS' GUEST EDITORIAL of July 17 seems to be reasonably well researched. However, the conclusions drawn are likely incorrect. The objections to wind power are three: It will cost more; it must be subsidized; and it cannot stand alone, but must be used in concert with other sources of electric power.
    The "costs more" argument has frequently been used as a bludgeon by the do-nothing, status quo crowd. They never mention the fact that all forms of energy are now costing more and will continue to cost more — in the case of oil and gas, a lot more. But let us not get sidelined into a discussion of the Middle East, petrodollars, etc., here.
    Instead, let's look at subsidies. In all modern societies, large matters such as transportation, communication, financial structures, war-making capacities, education and innumerable other necessities of life are largely centrally ordered and directly or indirectly subsidized. Examples could and do fill volumes; consider one, transportation. Since the ascendancy of the automobile, government has built a monumental system of highways, roads, streets, bridges, etc.; 40,000 citizens are killed every year, year after year, utilizing this system, and hundreds of thousands are injured; facts in themselves which require a rather vast system of medical care, law enforcement and insurance. Do the automakers pay for all of this? Certainly not. All they have to do is build the cars and trucks. Everything else is paid for, one way or another, by the taxpayer (who of course also pays for the cars).
    Before the advent of the automobile, trains were the favored form. The federal government engaged in massive giveaways of land to the railroad barons. Towns and even states courted them, and they secured every sort of subsidy and privilege. The government was at that time as uninterested in road building as it is today undesirous of getting involved with trains. Before rail locomotion, canals were the big thing. All subsidized, as is any promising new technology. (The huge losses of the airlines I need only allude to. But air travel is indispensable and, obviously, will not be allowed to go out of existence.)
    But is it worth it? Mr. Brooks mentions Texas. On July 19, the New York Times published an article titled "Texas Approves $4.93 Billion Wind-Power Project." "The planned web of transmission lines will carry electricity from remote western parts of the state to major population centers like Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. The lines can handle 18,500 megawatts of power, enough for 3.7 million homes on a hot day when air conditioners are running," the article states. Almost $5 billion is a lot of money. One guesses the electrical-generation companies know what they're doing. They plan to recoup capital construction costs by charging residential customers an extra $4 per month, a nominal rate increase in hot and muggy Houston. But ultimately, an $8 reduction in electric costs for every $3 invested is forecast by some, also according to the article. (Note to CNMEC board of directors: Want to be heroes? Now that the biomass proposal is back to square one, or more likely square zero, you folks could build a nice little wind generation plant on the same Torrance County site. Contact T. Boone Pickens, the Texas billionaire and wind guru, for further information.)
    To the other objection to wind power, that it can't stand alone, I say, "So what?" We have other forms of generation presently in existence, obviously. More alternative forms will be coming online for the next 50 years or more, so that eventually the environmental situation will get better every year instead of worse. Wouldn't that be nice?
    JOHN F. MIHELICH
    Estancia
   

---