Letters To The Editor, June 17, 2009
GOP Coverage Was Out of Dems Playbook
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Regarding the newspaper's coverage of the Virginia Republican convention, "Cuccinelli, Bolling Join GOP Ticket": In recounting Bob McDonnell's acceptance speech, the first item mentioned in the news story is McDonnell receiving applause when he commented on "innocent human life" and the right to bear arms -- as if that was the main thrust.
McDonnell's speech covered many pressing issues. He talked about taxes, energy, bailouts, tourism, small business, jobs, retirees, card check, and the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. Every speaker at the convention talked about the Republican belief in individual liberty and self-reliance as contrasted with the Democratic belief in social welfare and government dependence. There is not one word about any of this in the news article.
The article tried to convey the message that the convention attendance fell short of expectations. The 8,000 attendees were the most to attend a Republican state convention in Virginia in the past 15 years -- far beyond expectations.
There is space in the story to mouth the Democratic line that "Republicans turned down stimulus money for expanded unemployment benefits," but no space to explain the Republicans' stated reasons for doing this.
There was no mention of the remarkable speech by Adnan Barqawi, former Regimental Commander of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, about his life and what it means to be an American. He received two standing ovations and the loudest applause. The paper didn't showcase this accomplished ethnic minority who is a proud Republican.
This type of biased, skewed coverage of Republicans to fit a template is a page straight out of the Democrats' playbook. So, congratulations to this newspaper for fulfilling its role as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
Jessee Ring.
Pulaski.
Many Question Global Warming
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In a reply to my letter, "Climate Change Needs DeBunking," Rod Elser wrote, "Climate Debunking Was Bunk Itself." Let me assist him in understanding global warming.
I'll begin with the following from Science (http://www.theregister.co.uk/science): "Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies HadCRUT data . . . shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the Earth is not much warmer now than it was in 1878 or 1941."
On Jan. 14, 2008, John L. Casey, director of the Space and Science Research Center (http://www.spaceandscience .net) wrote the following: "The Earth has been in a long-term cooling trend technically for 11 years. The significant drop in global temperatures that also occurred between January 2007 and much of 2008 should have been enough for most observers to finally accept that global warming is over, except that this information was intentionally not passed on to the American people."
In a March 2, 2009 letter Casey sent to President Barack Obama, he expressed his concern about the uncertainties of attempting to regulate the environment, especially "now that global warming has ended, the attempt to legislate and then impose cap-and-trade schemes on the American taxpayer and their businesses can only be described as highly speculative."
Some additional facts: CO2 is not a pollutant -- it is necessary for all life on Earth. Human activity produces only .038 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere, with 96.5 percent of greenhouse gases derived from the oceans -- of which water vapor is the largest amount. Last, during the past millennium, levels of CO2 were often at higher levels than the current levels.
William Ryan.
Midlothian.
Can the Government Beat this Health Care?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Two months ago, I wrote letters to Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb, and to President Barack Obama.
The letter outlined my health-related issues over the past two years which have included two surgeries, an extended stay in intensive care, numerous tests, X-rays, doctor visits, and hospital visits for pre-admission and other testing. During this time my care was tremendous. All of my doctors, health care professionals, administrators, even the insurance companies, have been great.
My question to my legislators and president was: How would the new health care plan suggested by the Democratic Party improve my health care? To my great disappointment, none of these men gave me the courtesy of a return communication. Either they don't know the answer -- or they don't want me to know. So much for transparency.
Ed Nugent.
Chesterfield.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I do not believe that Mr. Nugent’s question is selfish at all. When the government proposes getting involved in the health care business, quality and management issues are of tremendous concern. If medicaid, medicare and social security programs are any indication of what we can expect, Mr. Nugent’s question is one that everybody should be asking.
Doesn’t anyone see the conflict of interest in the government being in the healthcare business, competing against the private sector? Government making the laws AND being in the business? Doesn’t the government’s abysmal track record of bloated inefficiency concern some of you cheerleaders for the program? You seem to have a tremendous amount of faith in a president who hasn’t done anything of consequence correctly at this point.
As to “my (health) care was tremendous”, but one did not get a response on a plan to improve it, I would not answer Mr. Nugent neither, as after all, if Mr. Nugent has not listened to the often printed and verbal news about the Obama outline for reform, part of which is “if you like your current plan of coverage, doctors, etc, you can keep it”, how do we expect Mr. Nugent to understand this part of now? Obama has asked both Dems & Reps, with input from the health care industry, to formulate a reform plan based on one primary principle: “affordable” health care for all. He has NOT proposed a socialized dictated system. So far, GOP’s biggest concern is the insurers, and not we citizens, i.e. fearing a non-profit lower-cost insurance option would would harm the industry, like Anthem BCBS of VA who services(?) my wife’s 6-mo old plan being increased 14.4% in premiums July 1 from $755 to $864/mo ($10,368/yr) with $5,000 deductable and 50%+ drug copays. Her ONLY option, due to illness many years ago; an insurer free to increase rates anytime, even every 6 mos, while paying out on claims less than 10% of premiums we pay. Mr. Nugent like his? Fine. We don’t like my wife’s and GOP does not want to allow her a choice cause it would “pain” Anthem’s profits. How about our financial pain? How about millions of other American’s pain?
“A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.“ Frank I. Luntz, Republican political consultant and pollster.
William Ryan’s letter is an example of fallout from PR campaigns designed by strategic communications and market research experts like Frank I. Luntz.
Luntz’s specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”
Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research:
http://www.luntz.com/where_overview.html
“In the political arena, our CEO, Dr. Frank Luntz, is known for helping change the public vocabulary – he transformed the “estate tax” into the “the death tax,“ moved the public debate from “school vouchers” to “opportunity scholarships,“ and re-cast “drilling for oil” as “exploring for energy.“ He is the researcher behind one of the most quoted survey of the last 20 years (a survey that found that more young people in America today believe in the existence of UFOs than believe Social Security will exist when they retire). In the corporate arena, Luntz, Maslansky currently works for clients in virtually every major industry: pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, energy, health care, transportation, sports, entertainment, travel and tourism, shopping centers, grocery stores, restaurants, food, and beverages.”
***
“The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America” Memo from Frank Luntz to President George W. Bush, 2002:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.“
“The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”. Words such as “common sense” should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.
The phrase “global warming” appeared frequently in President Bush’s speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced. Environmentalists have accused the party and oil companies of helping to promulgate the view that serious doubt remains about the effects of global warming.
To support what I wrote earlier regarding the fact that there is no cooling trend whatsoever:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/
Deal with the science, not what someone tells you to think.
As for disingenuous comments about funding, that is patently absurd. We are talking about scientific research. Data do not lie. And we are also talking about the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Meteorological Society, to name just a few. And the work is peer-reviewed science, not just what someone thought or hopes. Global warming due to the additional forcing from CO2 is unequivocal. Stop denying science as if this is the Middle Ages.
Posted by ( dswx ) on June 17, 2009 at 5:26 am
Every major climate science organization in the world ...
Is interested in just one thing. Maintaining, or increasing their level of funding.
“"The Earth has been in a long-term cooling trend technically for 11 years.“
No, that is absolutely false. And irrelevant since climate is measured in terms of 30+ years. There is no significant cooling trend over the past 11 years. Just saying so because you want to beleive it does not make it so. It has to be significant. It is not.
“ Last, during the past millennium, levels of CO2 were often at higher levels than the current levels.“
Again irrelevant. We are talking about the warming trend over the past 30+ years which can not be explained simply by any natural variation. Read the science. Stop regurgitation disinformation.
Every major climate science organization in the world agrees regarding the role CO2 plays as a feedback to global warming. Any less is to deny fundamental science that has been known since the 19th century. Stop lying about it.
“My question to my legislators and president was: How would the new health care plan suggested by the Democratic Party improve my health care?” —Ed Nugent
One would hope that Ed Nugent, already having “tremendous” health care & “great… doctors, health care professionals, administrators,…[&] insurance companies, would ask himself what can be done to help his under & uninsured neighbors. I would be disappointed if Warner, Webb, or President Obama would give priority to such a selfish, discourteous question.
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