Letters to the Editor
JackSparx
Published Letters: 429 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Crash on the levee
[Read the article: A deluge waiting to happen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Nobody is saying we should go around the country tearing down all the levees, because they're protecting homes, businesses and farms," says Kusky. "But...There's no reason to build new levees and advertise new homes on the flood plain. It's not safe anymore."
Maybe nobody talks about tearing down the levees because if they do, the FBI comes knocking at the Army Corps request. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/us/22dam.html?fta=y
Actually, people talk about removing (or moving or changing structures or policies of) levees and control structures all the time. The Army Corps itself has worse PR problems than post-Katrina FEMA or any given state's DNR, even (or especially) in river towns. I'm not exactly breaking any news here by saying that the ACOE is seen as arrogant and politically driven in the worst sense.
While Kusky's skepticism is right about new construction (duh), his sidestep on removing (or changing) existing structures sounds more like diplomacy than science. The River needs somewhere to flood, but nobody wants it in their basement or on the lower 40.
-
Sugar for sugar
[Read the article: A deluge waiting to happen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Actually, we need more floods, not at homes, but in special floodplains with nothing but agriculture" -jebldmm
Yeah, "nothing but agriculture." Or maybe we need more floods in special floodplains in the cities where there is nothing but houses and office buildings.
Sorry, I just had to laugh at that one.
I actually agree with (expanding) designated floodplains and expanded wetlands, but I'd like to see the money currently going toward control structures (and farm subsidies) spent as compensation to those who are nothing but farmers and rural landholders. Maybe an additional tax on those in the cities protected by these lands would also be appropriate to fund the program.
-
Obama's report card.
[Read the article: The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My strong support for Obama really came down to five strands:
1. Restoration of the Constitution. I trace most of the ills of the past eight years to an ability of this administration to end run not just the rights of Congress and the Courts, but those retained by the people. Obama now flunks this test because of FISA, and his dishonest defense of his actions. And that disappoints me terribly. Even if I had disagreed with him on every other issue, and I disagree on several big ones, the idea that we again have an open process of democratic debate, and regain our moral posture in the world, would have been enough itself to earn my vote. F.
2. Generational change. Not just that Obama belonged to a younger generation, he could have been a boomer who rejected boomer narcissism and the desire to fight old battles for empty points. But now Obama surrounds himself with some of the same old creeps we've seen for years. Flunk.
3. A restrained approach to committing American troops abroad. I don't call this one a flunk, though his use of harsh rhetoric that may have to be backed by blood has been a continuing concern, even before he began to sell out. D.
4. An awareness of the corrupting factor of power and money. I didn't mind that his campaign raised big bucks with small donations. But I have little doubt that his stand on the telecoms is just a way to raise money. He doesn't give a shit about little folks like me anymore. A double-flunk.
5. A believable broker who will seek out new solutions to environmental and social issues, leaving behind failed approaches. I believe he will seek out new solutions. I also don't believe he's an honest broker. D.
I can't vote for this fake. Maybe I'll write in Feingold.
Hey Senator Obama, can I have my money back?
-
The last hope--the courts
[Read the article: The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The President and the presidential candidates have now vowed to gut the Fourth Amendment.
Both parties and both houses in Congress will soon betray the Constitution.
I guess the only hope is that the Courts will defend their own power by refusing to follow the directed verdicts that the law demands on immunity, allowing the justices to reject the law itself. Even under the best scenario, such a process of appeals would take years.
-
The difference between Obama and Bush
[Read the article: The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]President Bush says, "You may not disagree with me while I gut the Constitution."
Candidate Obama says, "You may disagree with me while I gut the Constitution."
Is that a distinction without a difference?
Obama lied to us to get the nomination. We have to assume he's lying to us now. We can't expect the Attorney General he appoints will be any friendlier to American values than an Ashcroft or a Gonzalez, or that there will be any significant break from the anti-Constitutional policies of the last eight years.
-
Point the finger at us
[Read the article: A biofuel food-price bombshell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The people evangelizing and driving bio-diesel are mostly lefty environmentalists. I also know of at least one environmental organization that allied with agribusiness to promote ethanol. The article takes a swipe at the Bush administration, but it's not just their fault. It is our own.
Environmentalists care little about social equity, and place the burden on the world's poor. That inequity undermines long-term environmental goals.
No one wants to talk about reducing total resource use.
-
When in the course of human events...
[Read the article: The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...certain inalienable rights...
What a sad Fourth.