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
Not only have you learned how to direct your browser to an online dictionary, but you have mastered cut and paste! Congrats!
Next time, maybe you can try articulating your points instead of merely repeating them. I notice that, once again, you have brought nothing to the table besides some lame attempts at insults. You can say what you will, but all of your talking around the issues and stating over and over, ad nauseum, does not make you a winner in anyone’s eyes but your own.
Well if it isn’t my ol’ debating bud…Mr. 12step.
Umm, I see that my writing is getting to you. That’s good. Controlled debate usually brings out the best (and in your case) the worst of folks at times.
Firstly…I’ll respect you and not resort to any vulgar interludes (abbreviated or not) whether you do or not. No, I won’t complain to the TD. The parameters set by the TD are quite clear on that. 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.
If you have ever been involved in formal debate, you know that. Finally, and to illustrate my entire point as simply as I can for your obvious benefit…fourthly… I can’t simplify this much more because you’ve already fully illustrated your lack of ability at the written word…I REPEAT THE ENTIRE PAST VERBAGE TO BECOME A POINTED ISSUE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR YOUR ABSORBSION…
The ‘substance’ of this particular set of exchanges is two-fold (hence the two-bird usage). I did in fact answer your questions by offering the fact that those past struggles (of the a-fore-to-mentioned) were for rights other than sexual orientation (darn, there’s that pattern thingy again, more substance). Your (uh, sorry) the homosexual lobby’s central issues re: rights, is the right to inject their private agenda into the mainstream of society. I don’t feel that there were any such agenda manifested in those past struggles.
The main difference (besides sexual orientation, oops there’s that substance thing again) is that black people, women and Native People only had to be seen to be discriminated against. The current issues that involve discriminatory practice begin with a homosexual’s declaration of their “orientation.” The term “gay rights” is iambic term that is also a marketing tool. I was in the military for over two decades. I would fight to the death to defend anyone’s rights to any of those mentioned in our Constitution. However good sir, I fail to see any reference to “sexual orientation” anywhere in that document…more substance.
The quote from your reply, “I’m having a hard time believing that someone who is such a strong supporter of individuals’ rights to privacy” is negated when the privacy is no longer private! My marriage is not threatened by my having to make our (my wife and myself) bedroom issues my central priority because 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.”
I am “impacted” by having to waste time in endless, futile, meaningless and disheartened debate about what should be held as PRIVATE!
Your quoted phrase, “apocalyptic prophecies” (uh, “A” after “C” is an old rhyme for little kids learning to spell…again you force this by not spelling ‘apocalyptic’ correctly). If you’d like to debate further…I will have to insist that you at least utilize your spell check.
In closing for the nth time, I feel I have answered all your concerns as vividly as possible. By-the way…why don’t you look up the word “Debauchery.”
Hey XXXX,
Does that handle refer to movie ratings or something?
The entire issue has nothing to do with civil unions. The states that forbid civil union dialogue in their individual legislatures need to have the referendum hauled out to the floor and voted on. I think that it would be fair and proper to have the states’ legislators introduce such law as that dealing with the notion of “civil unions” to give the same rights to same-sex couples.
But that’s not what the homosexual lobby (and 12step) wants. 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 issue is not as you say the civil unions. I don’t see any see any protests in all the capitals of this country decry “we want civil unions…we demand our rights to civil unions.” Nope, it’s the word “marriage” that’s on target.
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. That’s the entire issue (in spite of 12step’s ranting).
To prove this to you, you should see if you can go to the TV and watch the news to see if there are demands in the streets for “civil unions.” There won’t be. The mission is to destroy everything held in high moral value by the homosexual lobby (uh, and Mr. 12step too).
Garlicguy, you said:
“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.”“
Uh, no the issue isn’t the word marriage. The issue is that most states have laws prohibiting same sex couples from entering into or receiving the same benefits as hetrosexual couples under either marriage or civil unions. For Virginia see Title 20 Chapter 3.
I certainly don’t understand why you seem to think that marriage is related only to private matters that occur in your bedroom. I say that because the Code of Virginia, Title 20, Chapter 2 doesn’t address your bedroom at all.
“The ‘substance’ of this particular set of exchanges is two-fold (hence the two-bird usage). I did in fact answer your questions by offering the fact that those past struggles (of the a-fore-to-mentioned) were for rights other than sexual orientation (darn, there’s that pattern thingy again, more substance). Your (uh, sorry) the homosexual lobby’s central issues re: rights, is the right to inject their private agenda into the mainstream of society. I don’t feel that there were any such agenda manifested in those past struggles.“
Alright, “good sir”, let’s get a couple of things straight… you haven’t qualified a single statement in this entire exchange. Take the above nonsense, for example. All of the verbosity, condescending tone, and spell checking in the world will not clear the air of your BS.
Right to sexual orientation? I didn’t realize that was the discussion. I thought we were talking about the right to marry, something which other groups have had to fight to do. However, sexual orientation isn’t a “right”. It’s a fact of matter, same as variations of color of skin. Whether you deem it a “right” or not, homosexuality has always and will continue to exist. Your go-to argument seems to be that homosexuals asserting their rights to exist and associate as they see fit is poisoning society as you see it, that it is just fine with you as long as you don’t have to see them or know that they’re homosexuals. I’m saying that the same thing was said in the name of delaying desegregation. “We don’t have any problem with them, we just don’t want them around US.“ So what if someone wants to be publicly gay and married? If you agree with their ability to enter into civil unions, then why should the government be making laws regarding “marriage”, which outside of the civil union aspect, is a cultural or spiritual matter. I fail to see how that is any proverbial “skin of your back”.
So, “good sir”, take your condescending attitude on back to dictionary.com and enjoy the smug satisfaction gleaned from having edited an internet posting which took all of 3 minutes to bang out. Were Dante to craft The Inferno in modern times, there would surely be a circle for the internet spell checker, the most annoying of the self-righteous internet users.
Thank you again good sir…substance (uh, hum) you know not what substance is. I shall use this particular reply for the old ‘two-birds-with-the-same-stone’ diatribe. Firstly (and you force the issue) you can’t spell. The anti-miscegenation (see the “C”) laws dealt with race, not sexual orientation. The women suffrage laws dealt with voting rights and such, not sexual orientation. The AIM (American Indian Movement) issues and concerns dealt with everything that had been stolen from them since the beginning of this nation, not sexual orientation. Can you see any sort of pattern here…substance maybe? By-the-way, the ‘substance’ of this particular discussion was upheld today by the California Supreme Court by their Prop-8 decision.
I can’t simplify this much more sir.
The ‘substance’ of this particular set of exchanges is two-fold (hence the two-bird usage). I did in fact answer your questions by offering the fact that those past struggles (of the a-fore-to-mentioned) were for rights other than sexual orientation (darn, there’s that pattern thingy again, more substance). Your (uh, sorry) the homosexual lobby’s central issues re: rights, is the right to inject their private agenda into the mainstream of society. I don’t feel that there were any such agenda manifested in those past struggles.
The main difference (besides sexual orientation, oops there’s that substance thing again) is that black people, women and Native People only had to be seen to be discriminated against. The current issues that involve discriminatory practice begin with a homosexual’s declaration of their “orientation.” The term “gay rights” is iambic term that is also a marketing tool. I was in the military for over two decades. I would fight to the death to defend anyone’s rights to any of those mentioned in our Constitution. However good sir, I fail to see any reference to “sexual orientation” anywhere in that document…more substance.
The quote from your reply, “I’m having a hard time believing that someone who is such a strong supporter of individuals’ rights to privacy” is negated when the privacy is no longer private! My marriage is not threatened by my having to make our (my wife and myself) bedroom issues my central priority because 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.”
I am “impacted” by having to waste time in endless, futile, meaningless and disheartened debate about what should be held as PRIVATE!
Your quoted phrase, “apocalyptic prophecies” (uh, “A” after “C” is an old rhyme for little kids learning to spell…again you force this by not spelling ‘apocalyptic’ correctly). If you’d like to debate further…I will have to insist that you at least utilize your spell check.
In closing for the nth time, I feel I have answered all your concerns as vividly as possible. By-the way…why don’t you look up the word “Debauchery.”
“The ‘apples’ illustration was meant to make clear the point that women, minorities and Native Peoples’ struggles were not for the same reasons as the homosexual lobby.“
Talk about staying on topic, why don’t you answer the question, then? I asked for REASONS why they are not the same. Why are anti-misegination laws different from laws limiting persons of the same gender from entering into the same relationships? You have yet articulate that, you merely assert a position. Don’t dodge the question: ANSWER IT.
You said, “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.“
I’m having a hard time believing that someone who is such a strong supporter of individuals’ rights to privacy believes that a behavior is totally acceptable and legal as long as no one knows about it? Seems to me that if you believe so much in the institution of marriage, yours shouldn’t feel threatened by someone else’s. Note: they don’t want to marry YOU, they want to marry other homosexuals. I fail to see how this impacts you in the least, besides your apocolyptic prophecies of the societal upheaval. I reiterate, they’re not forcing an end to your chastity. If they did, that would be called “rape”, an entirely different issue altogether.
I await a response of substance (since you dodged all the issues the first time around).
Thanks again for the reply Mr.12steprevenge. Please allow my reply to begin from the finish of your written oratory.
Reread my passage sir and if you want a debate, please at lease stay on target. ‘Upend’ was the word I used, not ‘end.’ Upend refers to “bring about an affect to the extent of causing one to become ‘upset.’” Additionally, ending civilization is not the same as forced change. Forced change comes in many disguises.
The term ‘apples to apples’ can be stipulated by most with a high lingual ability to mean comparables, or ‘comps’ for short. Certain ‘unalienable Constitutional Rights’ could be taken to mean anything to anyone. That’s what happens with “religious grounds.” You brought that into the foray…and sir, not me. I don’t think the TD has enough time for you and I to enter into that arena. I can only make assumptions as to your stances therein at this juncture.
The homosexual community does not owe me anything and their ideals are not my business unless of course it means overturning the rights of voters in referendums. That’s what started this current exchange. The ‘apples’ illustration was meant to make clear the point that women, minorities and Native Peoples’ struggles were not for the same reasons as the homosexual lobby. I’m sure you’re capable of common sense thought. The two issues are not the same. To compare the two shows little capability for critical thought on the part of those that utilize the comparison.
I will assume that you know what ‘debauchery’ means. I don’t go around bragging about my heterosexual inclinations so I think that it is debauchery to do so in a dichotomous manner by forcing the homosexual agenda disguised as referendums or serving ‘openly’ in the military (oops, just began another debate can o’ worms) or anything else.
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.
That’s what the term debauchery means…‘forced end to chastity.‘
Again, if you want to debate…stay on target!!
“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.“
You ask for an example of the courts overturning the results of a referendum, I give you one. From that, you go on to assert that my end is “to upend civilization”? You call homosexuality “debauchery”? On what grounds? Religious? For you to appeal to the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and, at the same time deride the rights of others with whom you disagree is quite ironic. Yes, you have successfully demonized homosexuals, but you haven’t provided a rationale as to why their rights to free association are lesser than those of others.
Explain yourself, please… why is this NOT apples to apples? You went from decrying the overturning of referendums to referencing homosexual behavior as being responsible for the end of civilization. That’s a little bit of a stretch, don’t you think? Just making a proclaimation that they aren’t the same doesn’t really prove your point.
Thank you Mr. 12steprevenge for your comment.
I don’t think comparing the plight of The Civil Rights Movement to sexual orientation meets the criteria of ‘apples to apples. The ‘Women Suffrage Movement’ for rights, the ‘Civil Rights Movement’ for rights, and the ‘AIM’ (American Indian Movement) were examples of individuals advocating their rights to quite another issue as opposed to sexual orientation. The fact that you (and the homosexual lobby) utilize these worthy causes as a comparison belittles those that are truly commendable in nature.
The original intent of the Constitution fell short in its not being inclusive of the concerns of women and minorities specifically. It (the document) pertained to mainly white land-owning males. 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.
Thank you again good sir.
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