Letters to the Editor
rodian
Published Letters: 74 Editor's Choice: 5
-
the return on a US education
[Read the article: The car of the future is here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...using coal to charge electric cars still results in more efficient energy use, and far less green-house gas emissions, than the things we do right now.
Right.
Burn coal to produce steam to turn a turbine to power a generator to push electrons over a national electric grid, through several transformers to charge a toxic battery which will later discharge, thereby powering an electric motor to move your car.
vs.
Burn fuel to power an engine that moves your car.
Somehow this discussion always reminds me of folks who think wearing magnets in their shoes makes them feel better.
When we have enough nuclear capacity to make this feasible, then talk to me about it. And of course we're all looking forward to a future of fusion power - which today is still a pipe dream.
If we want energy independence, we need to invest in clean electrical plants first, not second. You're buying renewable energy credits to charge your car you say? Great - those are renewable energy credits that you have made unavailable to folks who are using power wisely, thereby compelling them to buy dirty power instead.
Plug-in car affectionados are hurting, not helping, the cause of energy independence and the environment.
-
Useless
[Read the article: Young voters are stoked]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If every single person in the United States who was eligible to vote turned up at the polls, we would still elect a crappy president. We don't need more voters, we need a decent roster of candidates. There's only one Ron Paul, and he's drowning in a sea of vainglorious mediocrity.
We also need to stop using the worst voting system possible.
http://tinyurl.com/2g3rdx
-
@PaulE
[Read the article: Young voters are stoked]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Look at the front-runners now. They all have a certain centrist appeal that hasn't been present for decades."
First of all, bullshit. Every candidate that has won any recent election at least has done so by appealing to centrist sentiments - whether they follow through on their promises or not.
The USA is fast becoming the poster child for the perils of mob-rule democracy. It's a race to bottom, otherwise known as the "center", with smarmy pretenders like George Bush and Hillary Clinton whoring to our basest instincts. Ban the violent videogames! Beware of the mullahs! The rest of the world hates us, so we must arm ourselves! Our enemies are living among us! I can protect you! I can find them with my spies! I know how to heal you! I know what to do! Just give me your money, and I'll make everything better!
We are 100% certain to elect yet another form of nanny state protector, from one party barely distinguishable from the other. And it will be thanks to people like you, PaulE. The "centrists". People without principles, only a desire to be coddled and protected. And you deserve what you get. I just feel sorry for the rest of us.
-
voter confusion
[Read the article: Your presidential candidate: Hot or not?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Several have commented on how range voting (or other alternatives) would confuse voters. Witness the confusion already caused by our simple plurality voting system. I think that's absolutely true.
Here's my question: Why should people who can't follow very simple instructions be allowed to vote anyway? I think all ballots should include questions designed to ensure some minimal level of intellectual competence. Can't pass the test, your ballot is invalidated.
Who would write the questions? Who decides what minimum level of competence is required? Good questions, and I don't have the answers. I still like the idea though.
-
@Mike_in_NM
[Read the article: Tween bees]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why can't any media outlet today remain by, for, and about adults?
Discussing the choices you must make as a parent seems pretty adult to me.
I have three girls, and my oldest daughter is nine. She hasn't been too caught up in the whirlwind of preteen consumerism, largely because she's rarely exposed to it (basic cable, because I'm cheap, not because I'm a pretentious culture kook).
But however crass the consumerism may be, there's something equally crass about denying children the opportunity to participate in the the same activities as their would-be peers; because if they don't, they may not have many peers. It's tough enough for today's over-scheduled kids to make connections without the additional obstacle of their parent's specious moralizing. Until someone figures out how to turn Marie Curie into a titillating role model for nine year old girls to chatter about in the hallway, we have only two choices: shut them off from the world, or accept that their shallow passions are a normal part of growing up, and let them be kids. Hanna Montana is bubble gum and a milkshake. Sure, we should all just eat broccoli, and when we do, we can start insisting that our kids follow in our footsteps.
I'm going to go see HM in 3D with my nine year daughter and one of her friends this weekend. I can't wait to see the smile on her face.