Letters To The Editor
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I appreciate the news story, "You Can Save Money or You Can Save the Planet," about the Surry coal power plant as an attempt to frame the issue for the public. However, the article falls short of accurately explaining the debate because it fails to fully report the potential for cost-effective energy efficiency to meet our energy needs. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) reported in September 2008 that Virginia can meet at least 19 percent, if not more, of its 2025 electricity needs through cost-effective energy efficiency (meaning that it costs less to save electricity than it does to generate electricity). As reported in the ACEEE Virginia report, the cheapest means of providing electricity (three to four cents per kilowatt hour) is to save otherwise wasted electricity through efficiency measures.
The article did not inform readers of this fact and misleadingly framed the controversy as an either/or choice between paying more for electricity to protect the environment and human health or having lower electricity bills at the expense of the planet and our own well-being. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures lower consumer costs while improving air and water quality and abating the advance of climate change. According to the ACEEE report, if Virginia chose to pursue the 19 percent energy efficiency goal, consumers would save $15 billion by 2025. Additionally, pursuing an energy efficient future would create over 9,000 new jobs by 2025. These economic benefits do not even include the savings from averted pollution-related health care costs and lost productivity. Clearly this is a choice in the best interests of our economy and our environment. Bill Greenleaf. Richmond. Editor, Times-Dispatch: In reference to the issue of sexting: Parents are delusional if they think that they do not have to confront these issues head-on with their kids before disaster strikes. It is just another kind of stranger danger. Kids do not know what is going to appear in the messages that their friends send them until after the message is opened.
For those who think that it is largely a suburban problem or is associated with certain socio-economic groups, they are nuts. It's everywhere. These are probably the same people who think their kids are not drinking or having sex because it is two o'clock in the afternoon.
Additionally, it is happening at a young age. I have a friend whose 12-year-old daughter was the unwitting victim of sexting in another state. She rebuffed the amorous advances of another young girl at school. Out of rejection, the spurned young lady illicitly snapped photos of my friend's daughter while in the locker room. They were then sent to dozens of other children in other schools as well as her own.
Sadly, even the law does not deal with this because the perpetrator either gets labeled as a sex offender or gets away without any legal reprimand. Heather J. Nees. Chesterfield. Editor, Times-Dispatch: In response to Jean Morris' letter, "Torture Critic Volunteers to Waterboard Cheney": She volunteers to waterboard an American who has sworn an oath to protect the United States -- but not a terrorist who has sworn an oath to destroy us. How ironic.
Where was she on Sept. 11, 2001? Did she not see the airplanes fly into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, and crash into a field in Pennsylvania? Doesn't she think that the people in those burning buildings and on those airplanes went through some sort of torture? What about their families?
This country has not seen another attack in the seven-and-a-half years since then. One reason is because of waterboarding. Would Morris rather see innocent Americans killed than terrorists coerced into revealing their plans to kills us? Lennie Ellzey. Emporia. Editor, Times-Dispatch: It has been informative to listen to both sides of the torture debate. Both make some excellent points. I'd like to cast the discussion in a different context: If given the choice, I wonder how many Americans would opt for a session of waterboarding in lieu of getting laid off.
Those who would consider that must at heart feel that the experience millions are enduring right now in our country is far worse than the experience we are subjecting the world's most heinous villains to. Barry Batista. Mechanicsville. Editor, Times-Dispatch: The stark contrast between our frenzied reaction to unfamiliar hazards and our reckless tolerance of familiar ones never ceases to amaze me.
The current incidence of swine flu, which has killed five Americans, has captured the headlines, cancelled public events, and closed dozens of schools. At the same time, we have blithely continued our consumption of meat and dairy products, which have been linked conclusively with elevated risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic diseases that kill 1.3 million Americans annually.
It's just not about chronic diseases. According to the United Nations, animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse emissions, leading to catastrophic floods, droughts, and sea-level rises -- which threaten human survival. It uses more fresh water and dumps more deadly wastes into our water supplies than all other human activities combined.
Each of us has a shared responsibility for our society's health and welfare. The best time to exercise this responsibility is on our next trip to the supermarket, where we can explore the rich variety of meat-free and dairy-free, ready-to-eat frozen dinners, veggie burgers and hot dogs, lunch "meats" and plant-based cheese, ice cream, and milk. Helpful transition hints and recipes galore are available at http://www.tryveg.org and http://www.chooseveg.org. Elgin Atwater. Richmond.
Reader Reactions
Just so you know garlicguy, not everyone who speaks up for the gay community is gay. I’m a hetrosexual who has been married to the same guy for almost 25 years.
Please do cancel your log on at RTD so that the rest of the world doesn’t have to be subjected to your narrow minded and preconceived idiocies.
Wow… you really are quite delusional. Has this strategy gotten you by this far in life or is this something you developed in your old age?
You may want to seek help.
Ah, yes… when all your other irrational arguments fail, prosthelytize and make absolutely blind accusations. I don’t have any agenda. I’m not aligned with any particular group or ideology. For one, the only time I’ve been depressed in the past 20 years was when my father dies. Not quite “pervasive”. As well, I’m quite happily married to a woman, but I have enough empathy and capability of abstract thought to be able to understand another person’s point of view. I understand what you’re saying, I just think your opinions are guided by your prejudices and fears of the unfamiliar, rather than reason. Understand that YOU are the one forcing the conflict. If you weren’t so concerned with what other people did with their private lives, the need to make the cause public wouldn’t exist.
So please, do take your ball and go home, never to return. ... and thanks for the wishes of “good luck”, but I don’t believe in “luck”. I believe we make our own world, which is why I can’t fault gays from trying to make their world the one they wish.
I actually feel sorry for you, that the world which you so desperately cling to is slipping from your grasp and you don’t have the wherewithal to pull yourself together. Afraid and ignorant is no way to go through life, son.
By-the-way…I ‘used to’ play poker alot and just now realized that I have just won the pot and am getting up from the table and walking away with all your “money.“
Again NNTO becuase I’m off the TD blog with all this morning’s parting oratory.
God Bless you!!
Hey XXXX and 12step revenge…
Now I understand the ‘revenge” part!
This will be the last reply to both of you poor depressed souls (en masse) because I’ve been involved in this type of debate for years with members of your community. I don’t have the time needed to expose your insidious missions/goals. The one central theme that has been in the forefront of all this debate stems from the old adage, “misery loves company.” The one true unarguable fact that I have seen time and again is that the entire homosexual community suffers from pandemic acute depression and they all want to spread it around as much as possible.
I have a few relatives that are confused about their sexual orientation and I have tried in this same manner because I care about them. It’s also no use there as well. One of them died alone from AIDS in a house trailer after rotting because no one cared enough about him. I live about 250 miles from him and hadn’t seen him in eleven years else I would have helped.
People aren’t enraged and offended by a “real marriage.” SO the homosexual community needs to ram (remember your own idiomatic ‘rammiage’) their “fake marriage” agenda down everyone else’s throats to do what…cause more conflict. Arguing with you only feeds your pitiful needs for this conflict. In fact that’s one of the core emotions involved in your central mission…conflict…not conflict resolution. I was involved in conflict resolution for over twenty years in the federal government and I have just now realized I can’t replicate the resolutions with you.
SO, as the passage reads in a certain and often misunderstood and misjudged text…”I turn my back and wipe the dust from my feet.” NNTO…because I have the last word…I’m canceling my “login” info from the TD blog…you’re lost little souls that need to be saved from certain destruction and I can’t help you unless I continue to degrade myself by remaining involved with your endless “depression spreading.”
I wish you a hearty ‘good luck’ cause you’ll need it.
“Does that handle refer to movie ratings or something?“
What a vulgar, corrupt and nasty little mind that you have. Maybe that’s your problem you only use your brain to think in terms of relating everything in life to sex.
Oh, man… you’re far from under my skin. Believe me, I’ve gotten more than one hearty chuckle at your expense. However, I will address your more structured statement as it appears below.
What I don’t understand is what exactly you perceive the threat from homosexuals to be. You keep on saying that they’re not content with civil unions and that they will press on until they can have apply the term “marriage” to their relationship. My point is that what they label their relationship is no business of yours. Why do you feel that distracts from the institution in general?
If people didn’t make referendums against it, they wouldn’t have to “bring their agenda to the forefront”. They could get married much the same as anyone else, with little fanfare outside of family and friends and you would NEVER HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
You take their actions as though they’re directed towards you and heterosexuals in general. Please. They’re not thinking about taking you down; they’re thinking about bringing themselves up.
You keep mentioning the harm to society, saying that this is the slippery slope towards child rape and bestiality, but on what grounds do you say that? What is the reasonable connection between these things? Outside of your wild stipulation, NONE. We’re not talking about people forcing their will on any other being… we’re talking about consensual relationships between two adults who want absolutely nothing to do with you.
They’re not trying to bring it into your bedroom. Their trying to stop laws that would prevent them from exercising what which they believe the government has no business legislating, namely the construct of marriage (once again, why is the government in the marriage game in the first place?).
Despite your tautological protests, this is QUITE analogous to the civil rights movement. Yes, I’m sure that many people didn’t want the agenda of blacks, or women, or any other oppressed group “in their faces”, but until those groups did so, nothing changed. It’s not about the specific condition upon which they are discriminated; it is the act of discrimination itself. You persist in stating that they should be satisfied with having made the front page of the news… their objective is bigger than that. They don’t want headlines; they want to be free. I’m sorry if their being in the position to have to advocate for themselves offends your delicate sensibilities, but as a wise man once said “it’s easier to put on slippers than to carpet the world”. Stop taking it so personally as it has absolutely nothing to do with you.
People want to live without the foot of governments or bigots on their back. That is what it means to live in a condition of liberty. Now, go worry about your own business and leave other people to do as they feel is best for themselves.
Good grief man…from vulgar abbreviations to unstructured babble “Bwahahahahaaaa! I don’t even need to say anything.” I’ve really have managed to get under your skin haven’t I. Tell you what. I’ll back off because this is no longer going down a constructive path. I’ll go from spell checking to Google referencing in an attempt to clear all this up. Additionally, I will reject myself from anymore “tone” that could be construed as non-constructive, insulting or negative as well. In short, I apologize for those tones, critiques and sarcasms. They don’t get anyone anywhere.
I’ll be as exact as I can and if you will, take it for what it’s worth.
Firstly (I know, I used this style before, but I’m trying to keep things in an orderly perspective). I’ll start with the 50% failed marriages in the hetero community you mentioned. You’re right! The statistical findings by marriage counselors and statisticians shows that since the end of the Second World War, divorce rates have climbed from a low of 5 to 12% in 1946 to a high of 51 to 64% last year and has started to level off a bit (Wm. Jeynes, PhD in his text, “Family and Relationships” McLanahan and Sandefur Publishing, 1994). Additionally, there’s…
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
encarta.msn.com/media_461547670/divorce_rates_in_the_united_states.html
…and there are more qualitative data available but you get the picture.
Secondly (and you must bear with me) divorce is the result of a failed marriage, no doubt. But go back to the beginning of that marriage. No one makes note of that marriage nor does it appear in several “above-the-fold” front page stories in newspapers across the country. In fact, I think the only methods of marriage announcements are in the engagements listings in a personal or style section buried in those same newspapers. The point is that no big issues are made of marriage in its day-to-day definition.
I hope we’re still on the same page.
The infallible difference is that when homosexual couples want a union, everyone has to be forced to hear about it. If the states (from XXXX’s letter) were to enact legislation (so insisted upon by constituents) to allow “civil unions” with all the same rights and privileges afforded to them that wouldn’t be enough. I (and I can prove this with televised media) have not seen any homosexuals protesting in the streets demanding that they be given the right to “civil unions.”
What I see is that the homosexual lobby’s demand for “marriage” (just the word) is to be given or recognized by the public in general…forced! I believe (and you may correct me if I’m wrong here) that the idea of “civil unions” may have started in the same manner as the “don’t ask don’t tell” debacle did in a political promise made somewhere down the road on the way to an elected office somewhere. The homosexual lobby doesn’t want to stop at “civil unions.” They are out to destroy the object of ‘marriage’ in general.
Put it this way, it is not my business to intrude into another person’s private life. When two adults have a relationship, it’s their business…period! That’s not the same with homosexuals. They want everyone to see them come out of their closets and they do not care that the event may be offending anyone. It’s selfish. It’s not anything that I want to see. It has now become everyone’s business and it causes conflict (don’t think I need to prove that here, do I).
The proof of what I’m saying lay in the news print headlines and televised media clips everywhere. The fact that the issue has become a national headline should be enough to satisfy the homosexual lobby…but it is not. The issues associated with this conflict (and it is) shall continue until the issue has torn apart the core fabric of society.
I’m not saying, “Stay in your closets.” I’m saying that it’s not my business what you do and its offensive that the homosexual lobby is forcing the issue on me and every other heterosexual that feels, “enough already!”
…to be continued!!
“ Secondly…if you can’t take the time (should you need it) to utilize spell check or confer in a typewritten dialogue in a correct manner, then you’re providing all that is necessary to the reading public herein t oshow that you’re LOOSING this debate…BIG TIME!! Thirdly…the air is quite clear! Your tone and vulgar abbreviations illustrate quite clearly (in fact) that you’re LOOSING this debate.“
Bwahahahahaaaa! I don’t even need to say anything. This speaks for itself. Irony meter off the charts!
I think I might include some of your more more humorous quotes for a good chuckle (see? I can use copy and paste, too!):
“To totally bring down the sanctity and importance of the institution of marriage by forcing the issue to the forefront is all that the homosexual lobby is after. They want to be on par with everyone else.“
Oh, yes… that oh, so sacred institution of marriage. So sacred is it to heterosexuals that over 50% of them end in divorce. Shame on them for wanting to be considered “on par with everyone else”.
“These folks want to hold to the old adage “misery loves company” to become manifested in the making of homosexual marriage the same as marriage.“
“The mission is to destroy everything held in high moral value by the homosexual lobby “
to be continued….
“the homosexual lobby’s central issues re: rights, is the right to inject their private agenda into the mainstream of society. “
“I don’t bring heterosexual issues to the forefront of political debate. That has been accomplished by the homosexual lobby. Their rights and privileges can be held in a civil union…they can have all the rights associated with a heterosexual union (uh, marriage) they can have all the same rights and privileges afforded in a mirrored fashion. The main issue is the word ‘marriage.‘“
... and here we have it. You just want to own the word “marriage”. You don’t care about the rights thing, you just want the word. Maybe gays could come up with a cooler name. I like “rammiage”.
“Again, it is not my business what people do in the confines of their bedrooms. IN FACT, I’ll defend anyone’s right to privacy therein. It becomes my business when two consenting adults take their beliefs out of ‘the closet’ and inject those beliefs into society as with all this”
... all this talk about “injecting”. Have you a Freudian issue at work here? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
“For a people to be free, ‘everyone’ should have unalienable rights. For you and the homosexual lobby to compare these principled ideals to the current debauchery involved in your true agenda weighs towards revealing your true intent: to upend civilization.“
If we include gays as a subset of ‘everyone’, the world as we know it will end. Makes perfect sense.
“‘alternative sex’ partners… evade our Constitutional principles and eventually evolve into pedophilic predators and bestiality (uh huh, they’re an alternative minority too you know) we’ll deserve the anarchy that will certainly accompany such filth.“
To sum it:
If homosexual marriage—-> predatory pedophilia and bestiality—-> anarchy! Once again, stellar application of logic, “good sir”. You sure showed us!
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement