Letters to the Editor: Private Rest Stops Benefit Weary Drivers
Private Rest Stops Benefit Weary Drivers
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Last weekend, as I traveled north through Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, it was brought home to me once again what all the rest stops in these states have in common: They are all privately run, and are extremely successful. Every rest stop is equipped with two gas stations, designated spaces for truckers to stop and catch up on their sleep, enormous restrooms, and lots of food choices.
These states long ago realized that rest stops, which are necessary to all travelers, rightly belong in the hands of private companies. The resulting rents paid by these companies enrich each state. A minus has been turned into a plus, and everyone wins -- especially the weary, hungry driver who desperately needs a bathroom.
Virginia lawmakers, please don't just throw up your hands and declare failure. Contact these other states, see how it's been successfully done, and keep our rest stops open.
Penelope Shaw Farace.
Glen Allen.
Voter Apathy Is Expensive
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I and nine others were poll workers at a Henrico precinct for the June 9 Democratic primary. We arrived at 4:45 a.m.. and stayed until 8:30 p.m., working a 15-and-a-half-hour day. We were compensated for a total of $1,500.
The kicker is that a total of 178 people cared enough to vote that day. Henrico tax dollars were hard at work on primary day, but the taxpayers were barely visible. One thousand, five hundred dollars were paid to the workers and a mere 178 votes were cast. Voter apathy is expensive.
Miles F. Johnson.
Richmond.
Au Pair Story Was Heartfelt and Uplifting
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Thank you for the uplifting and heartfelt news story, "Perfect Pair: Brazilian Au Pair Cares for Henrico Teen, Wins International Recognition," regarding au pair Ricardo Araujo. I sat and drank my Sunday morning coffee with tears streaming down my face. This young man certainly deserved the recognition bestowed on him. The relationship he formed with Taylor Boyer is a true testament to human compassion in a world filled with chaos.
Bill Lohmann did an outstanding job on this article.
Jane Atkisson.
Glen Allen.
Bill Does More Harm Than Warming Would
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I am really upset that the House passed the cap-and-trade climate bill. I strongly hope that it will not pass through the Senate. I refuse to pay more for my electricity and other products because of the misguided politicians who supposedly represent us.
I firmly believe that there is no proof of any man-made global warming, and this whole movement amounts to nothing but a scam. Even if the planet is warming, whether because of man or because of the natural cycles of the Earth, the important thing to realize is that this will not hurt the Earth! The Earth can adapt to changes in the climate, as it always has. Warming or cooling may hurt or inconvenience the people on the planet, but it won't hurt the Earth.
And for those who say it will hurt the polar bears, there is such a warped attitude that animals are more important than people, and it needs to be changed.
In the 1970s they were predicting an ice age; what happened to that? You can't reason with the global-warming extremists: If it is hot, they say it is because of man-made global warming, and if it is cold, they say it is because of man-made global warming. Plus, how much of a difference can the U.S. make when other countries won't be doing the same things to "save the planet" that we might be doing?
I am not for waste, and I support wind, solar, and nuclear power options, but passing this bill will result in higher prices for everyone, and the loss of millions of jobs in the U.S. Let us work on developing energy options -- but in the meantime we should be drilling for our own oil, and expanding our nuclear energy program.
Michael Paley.
Richmond.
Congress Deserves Its Low Approval
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Among the small group of people in government who had the authority to prevent the current worldwide financial calamity were Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Dodd chose to obtain a mortgage at a highly favorable rate from a company in California rather than a mortgage from a bank in his own state. That the mortgage company fell under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee immediately raises a question of impropriety.
Both the congressman and the senator repeatedly assured us all was well in the subprime mortgage business, a blunder of unimagineable proportions. The Managed Funds Association, whose members are the very loosely controlled hedge-fund managers and whose members helped bring on the current crisis, are concerned that the they may lose their very favorable tax rate of 17 percent, as compared to most workers who are taxed at 35 percent.
These same people, some of whom made hundreds of millions of dollars, are holding fundraisers for both Frank and Dodd to curry their favor in an attempt to retain favored status. They may very well succeed. No member of Congress has raised the issue of impropriety, because it is standard practice.
Is anyone surprised that a recent poll found the public has a 79 percent disapproval rating of Congress?
Walter Zadan.
Williamsburg.
Reader Reactions
While I do indeed believe that there might be something to this “climate change” or “global warming” stuff, there are still many unanswered questions.
First of all (assuming global warming is eventually proven to be occuring), can it be absolutely proven to be caused by mankind?
Second, why have the most severe climatic changes (warming and cooling) happened before we industrialized, invented CFCs and began driving SUVs?
Third, don’t climate changes (ice ages & warming periods) happen over centuries and millennia instead of years or decades? If it is ‘warmer’ now than twenty years ago, it might not predict what will happen 50, 100 or even 1000 years from now. (Folks who predict weather don’t know what it will do in two weeks - let alone two centuries!)
Fourth, if these ‘eco-friendly’ proposals are so great, why are most nations that are the worst polluters (India, China, Russia, etc.) going to be exempted or given a pass when it comes to meeting carbon standards? Seems to me most of these treaties will put the USA at a competitive disadvantage; hardly what we need in this economy!
Fifth, is carbon dioxide honestly a pollutant? If we get rid of CO2, does it not stand to reason that we will lose two oxygen atoms for every one carbon atom? What about plants that thrive on CO2 and produce oxygen for us to breathe? Seems to me there is a lot of science being conveniently ignored.
Finally, I am skeptical of the “models” being put forth as hard science. Some unscrupulous souls have chosen a desired outcome and then constructed their ‘model’ to reach that conclusion. Even Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick” climate model has been successfully challenged by some scientists who don’t buy his line of thinking.
This issue is far too complicated to solve on this forum, but I believe that there are many questions that need to be answered properly before we undermine our sovereignty, ruin our economy even more and reduce our standard of living to third-world status.
~ So sayeth The Dutchman ~
“However the whole global warming/climate crisis scheme is beginning to show itself as the junk science money grab it really is.“
Okay, that sentence is scientific ignorance to the max. Global warming is unequivocal. The data are strong, the peer-reviewed science is exceptional strong (much stronger than typical, common over the counter and prescription drugs that everyone uses). Warming since the 1970s can not be explained solely by natural variation. Only when greenhouse gases are also consider can the climate trend since then be explained. Putting your head in the sand just because you do not like the scientific results does nothing to address the reality.
And please do not bother to whine about “But, but, the last ten years show a cooling trend!“ They absolutely do not. And further spare us from the “In the 1970s, they said it was global cooling!“. Again, they did not. You can not find one single scientific article that says that. In the 1970s climate research was in its infancy. The trends were therefore uncertain.
Stop being anti-science and stop spewing lies about science. It is really a shame that the RTD continues to publish letters that have absolutely no basis in fact re: global warming science. The scientific debate by actual climate scientists is long over.
All we have to do is look to the cap-and-trade catastrophe in the EU.
The taxation scheme and solution looking for a problem is an abject failure on both counts.
Not to mention the inconvenient unintended consequences.
From NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis) an article that dealt with the problems at Kollo Holding’s (a silicon carbide maker) in the Netherlands.
.Because of lobbying by well connected companies, the EU’s limits on emissions ended up being higher than the actual emissions.
.As a result, few companies than expected had to buy emissions this, year and the price of carbon allowances, which had topped $30 per ton of carbon about a year ago, crashed to about $1 a ton.
.Germany boasts that it has cut emissions to 18.4 percent below 1990 levels, but nearly half the reduction was because of sagging industrial output in the former East germany after reunification.
For the 2008-2012 period, European Union officials sliced 5 percent off Germany’s emissions proposal.
The plant in question in the article uses waste gases to generate energy and is considered a standout by the managers..But Europe’s emissions program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power, which contrary to environmental goals, reduces energy effeciency.
.Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production.
.Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe’s costly regulations.
All the arguments for cap-and-trade are refuted in this argument. Not the least of which is that the reduction of emissions at huge cost is negligible.
I personally do not know a single person who would not willingly shell out more tax money if the gesture were to “save the planet.“ However the whole global warming/climate crisis scheme is beginning to show itself as the junk science money grab it really is.
Regarding privatized rest areas, they are a great idea. Ohio has some of the best in the nation on their turnpike - much nicer than NY, MD or NJ.
The caveat is that those ‘private’ rest areas are all on TOLL ROADS; something we already have too many of in this state.
Privatizing our rest areas - where the state owns the land & building, but private franchises own and operate the businesses inside - is a great concept; but will require Congress to take action. They’ll have to vote to allow such facilities on “free” highways (such as I-95 in VA & NC).
Do that and I am all for it….but keep the tolls off of roads we have already paid for with tax dollars.
~ So sayeth The Dutchman ~
They went out of business because of sloppy business practices and a perfect storm of market conditions that was predicted in a 1999 article in the NYTs. That’s the nice thing about private enterprise / free market - you do it right or you’re history. Unfortunately, the government constantly screws up and simply raises taxes to compensate.
Mr. Zadan and VaGentleman,
explain to me why Bear Stearns went out of business in a couple days?
Explain to me why AIG went bust, explain to me why Lehman went bust, Merrill was bought out over a weekend.
I do understand Frank and Dodd’s involvement and control of Fannie and Freddie Mae, but no one has explained to me how they forces these enterprising free market companies to take risks they couldn’t afford. I think you are being to simplistic and frankly following a party line that just doesn’t explain everything.
I don’t like what has happened and Frank and Dodd hold a lot of responsibility for regulating Fannie and Freddie, but these other companies did it on their own. Didn’t they?
Please explain if I am wrong, because I am still trying to understand all points of view.
Memo to Mr. Zadan: BINGO!
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