Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
They won't campaign for Democrats
[Read the article: More top brass blast Rumsfeld]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"No one is stopping these ex-generals from going out and campaigning for opposition politicians (Democrats) in the House and Senate to bring the regime under control."
As bad as it is, I doubt many flag officers will campaign for Democrats simply because Democrats are often seen as anti military.
Many of the posts on Salon and the general tone of most postings by the left are anti-military, which quite frankly is a shame.
Military service is honorable, and the men and women in uniform deserve our respect, but they don't always receive that.
-
Rubbish
[Read the article: Not a drop to drink]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with water is not that there is not enough of it, it's that it is not always where it is needed most.
We had wells that in total produced over 1,000 gallons of water a minute. Per Minute. You know how long we could pump those wells till they went dry? Forever. Literally, geographical changes would have to take place before the water ran out.
Plenty of places in the World have an over abundance of water. Even places in the United States.
Looking at local conditions where there are water problems, such as the Colorado river and using that as a World Wide comparison is dishonest.
This crazy alarmist claptrap is no more acceptable from the left than it is from Bush and cohorts.
-
Water Usage not relevent
[Read the article: Not a drop to drink]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]CT, it doesn't matter how much water it takes to grow or produce anything. What matters is WHERE.
Growing cotton, very water intensive, in the desert is dumb. Raising cattle in East Texas where the rainfall is huge does not waste water in the least.
We are not the wisest in terms of what crops we chose, but that doesn't mean that it's valid to say using 800 gallons of water to grow a pound of beef is somehow a poor decision.
There are places where there is way too much usable water and thus spending 800 or 80,000 gallons to produce a pound of beef makes no difference what so ever.
-
You need a more detailed description than East Texas?
[Read the article: Not a drop to drink]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"its your anecdote that i find on shaky ground. some place you fail to identify has a vaguely defined excess of water, and im supposed to buy that as an acceptable refutation of this capsule article."
Really, you need the counties and towns? East Texas has more than enough water. As I wrote, we personally had wells that combined for over 1,000 gallons per minute. I've also seen it rain in excess of 12 inches in an hour.
Besides that, if you do not understand that many places on the planet have an excess of water than you are simply too uninformed to have an opinion worth listening to.
Once again, the problem with water is not that there is too little of it, it's that it is not always available where it is needed.
"i actually find that the author does a good job of defining in snapshots the major geopolitical issues surrounding water-usage at the moment. i feel confident that if i were to do further research that i would find his facts well researched and thought out and presented at length in a more appropriate venue. yours not so much."
Since you admit that you've done no research on the topic, perhaps you should inform yourself first before interjecting yourself into an argument.
As I said, growing cotton in a desert is not a good idea, but that has no bearing on how much or little water is needed for raising crops or livestock. The only issue it address is WHERE such crops and livestock are raised.
"you seem a bit shrill on this subject. what is behind this hysterical ateempt to discredit this well-meaning article i wonder?"
The fact that is is internally inconsistent drivel that does nothing more than insult people with a basic level of knowledge of the subject and like all sensationalist drivel it uses meaningless catch phrases in order to drum up interest in its subject while misleading the uninformed.
Had the author said, water resources are a constant political battle even have great potential to start armed conflict between nations, then I'd fully agree. When the author states that a hamburger takes 800 gallons to make in order to bring attention t the rest of the issues in the article, I'll take offense because the amount of how much to raise has nothing to do with the other points.
There are plenty of valid points to be made about water resources without deliberatly misleading people.
-
It wasn't funny
[Read the article: Making Colbert go away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How could it really be funny? There were a couple of laugh out loud moments, but the whole performance was too saddening to actually be funny.
It's hard to find humor in the fact that the President of the United States is an idiot who doesn't have a clue and has survived on pretty politic tricks that have now been openly laid bare. It's hard to find humor that the press corp, which should be investigating the administration, has not only been complacent in these politic tricks, but have actively aided them.
Sure, it was hard to laugh because Colbert removed the curtain and what we saw was anything but funny.