Letters to the Editor - Feb. 20

February 20, 2011

If ‘greenies’  have their way, incandescent bulbs will be banned

To the editor:

While enjoying the firelight of our burning fireplace, I was prompted to think how crazy this fear of burning fossil fuels has become at the urging of the environmentalists. The belief that global warming is being encouraged by the presence of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere is absurd, no matter how many “experts” and Al Gore testify to the contrary. It isn’t the first time they were wrong or having another agenda.

Twenty-five years ago, they had us worried about CFCs causing the “hole in the ozone layer” of the upper atmosphere. It spawned the government banning of Freon being used as a refrigerant as well as restrictions on propellants in hair spray cans and the like. The result was the birth of a new industry of more expensive “safe refrigerants,” which performed thermodynamically poorer than Freon. I guess that repaired the “hole” over the South Pole; I never heard.

Global variations in weather are occurring and are most assuredly influenced by our own sun and its ever varying output of energy, solar and magnetic, coming to the earth. It is not controlled by the events on earth. Man, earth’s occupant, does not control global weather events as so many scientists arrogantly profess with little real evidence.

The incandescent lamp (light bulb) is destined for the same death by government edict as Freon. Do we need policymakers to tell us that we can’t use Edison’s invention any more? The “greenies” think so. Even if the curlicue new bulbs (fluorescent) are more efficient in producing light, the marketplace can figure this out without government banning conventional light bulbs. And if you break one, call Hazmat!

Anyone who thinks that the federal government should continue to make endless rules in order to control our everyday life should apply for a visa, travel to Havana and tell us how they like it when government has its hands in every aspect of people’s lives.

Experience true unadulterated socialism, and if you like it, don’t come back.

Ned A. Garrett

Newspaper headline contained grammatical error

To the editor:

On Sunday, Feb. 6, I was appalled to see a glaring grammatical error in a front-page headline in The Herald-Mail. The offending line was “Who Do You Love” instead of the correct “Whom Do You Love.”

How can we expect our children to master proper grammar when our writing professionals confront them with either blatant indifference or blissful ignorance?

The same day, I heard a well-known TV commentator say, “The deal was good for both he and I,” instead of the correct “him and me.” Even worse, I regularly hear TV newsmen ask, “Where are you at?”

One would think the entire world had been educated in The Herald-Mail’s Mail Call column.

Richard L. Hershey

Religious theme park should not receive tax rebates

To the editor:

Mark Looy’s Jan. 31 response (“Kentucky ark funding will not come from grants”) to Allan Powell’s Jan. 23 article on the creationist theme park in Kentucky seems intended to confuse.

The state’s Tourism Development Finance Authority has granted preliminary approval for the park to receive as much as $37 million in tax revenue by allowing the religious theme park to retain one-fourth of the sales taxes to be generated by the park. It is that subsidy that Professor Powell indicated clashes with the clear wording of the state constitution.

In any event, the park is projected to be so successful that state aid is not needed. Further, the park has said that it will practice religious discrimination in hiring, and that is another reason why public assistance is objectionable.

Professor Powell correctly notes that a 500-foot ark, about the same length as a U.S. Navy frigate, could not possibly hold a pair of every animal species in the world. And the biblical Noah could not possibly have brought in animals from North and South America, Australia and Indonesia.

The religious creationist theme park has every right to be built, but the state of Kentucky has no business aiding it with tax rebates, to the disadvantage of taxpayers of all faiths.

Edd Doerr, President
Americans for Religious Liberty
Silver Spring, Md.

Cyclists should heed the rules of the road

To the editor:

This letter is in reference to one written by Ed Canfield (Jan. 27, A4). What I see on the roads every now and then but have never heard the problem brought up, is where a cyclist rides on the left side of the road facing oncoming traffic. This can be dangerous, confusing and cause an accident.

This happens not only with kids, but I notice with adult cyclists, too.

What makes them think they don’t have to obey standard traffic rules and regulations like any other moving vehicle on the roads?

I called the police station recently to express my concern and get their take on this matter and was told it is not allowed. The offender would be pulled over.

From an early age, children should be instructed by their parents as soon as they are old enough to be allowed to cycle on the streets and roads, to learn the safety rules and laws. This also could be brought up in school.

True, pedestrians are always advised to walk close into the shoulder on the side of the road facing oncoming traffic, when there is no sidewalk. Not so for cyclists to help keep everyone safe.

I sincerely hope those cyclists will heed the rules of the road and ride in the same direction as all other moving vehicles and obey all rules and regulations.

Madge Brown

Letter writer pleased with columnist’s work

To the editor:

Rowland is fine by me.

P. Garfield

The Herald-Mail Articles