Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 278 Editor's Choice: 42
-
No more
[Read the article: McCain's gassy tax relief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dawdler- Just to set the record straight, I would not vote for McCain, ever, but those in my situation might, because he is talking small-picture economics, that is, what we dummies understand - a per gallon cut in price. Of course, that wouldn't actually result in much of a savings, because it's all a shell game, but he is the only one who hasn't talked about raising gas taxes for our own good. I hate it when politicians give us double-talk about "Americans not willing to pay to protect the environment." This is corporate-speak for "We aren't paying for shit."
chiefpayne -
And just WHO do you think will PAY this tax? The companies will NOT bear the cost...they will push this onto the consumers...who will decrease their purchasing of the above or in other places and then you will see things only get WORSE.
I COMPLETELY believe that the corporations should pay for what they have wrought!!! They have bribed and stolen from our governments to line their pockets and given us crap wrapped in plastic to buy for decades, meanwhile fouling our air, earth and water - because they made more money that way!! This is a moral issue, not an economic one.
Who is SUPPOSED to be providing free money to small businesses in trouble - I didn't know this was the job of the government.
Excuse me but they just bailed out Bear Stearns, for making their own bad decisions, decisions that enriched the wealthy and our so-called representatives through lobbying dollars. How about spreading that largesse to the actual victims of their greed - small businesses and wage earners!!!
williedigital -
Unfortunately, most workers, poor or not, do not use public transit to commute. Just because the majority of transit riders in areas where transit exists are poor people commuting, do not assume that most poor commuters take public transit. In all but a handfull of markets, the ONLY people who take transit are those too poor to own a car, the physically or mentally handicapped, and/or radical leftist students.
Yeah, when was the last time you took the bus; I think you will find that the market for public transit has widened considerably. You just don't want to ride on public transit with the great unwashed. Your statements smack of elitism.
I get the two of you (CP & WD) work for the transportation (or related) industry which resists all change to protect their profits, and f*ck the environment. It's so HARD, you whine, to change the way the economy works, let's just let the market do it. Well, when the little people (us) run out of cash to buy your goods transported 3000 miles away, and bartering with our neighbors for veges and bread replaces your "Market" let's see how hard it is to change the economy on a dime.
Talk about being bitter!!! I am furious!!!
-
Growing our new paradigm
[Read the article: Your very own climate change Victory Garden]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, starting a garden is work and costly. Your first year or two, you are forcing the earth to do your bidding. There is a learning curve, like every worthwhile endeavor. But by the third season, with good practices and tools, you can do little work and still harvest lots of food. I mean LOTS of food, that can be shared, bartered and donated. Let's change the concept of donating cash to donating food and we've made a big change in our current economic paradigm.
-
Corporations killed the electric car
[Read the article: Is humanity running out of technological tricks?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and the 10 year light bulb. We are mired in a disposable economy because that's the corporate paradigm. If it threatens their profits, it's a dead technology. That's why we are stuck, not because there isn't the expertise or the inspiration to solve our energy problems.
-
Just a note
[Read the article: Drop that salmon!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find it odd to defend media cooks, since I agree with everything else the book author says in this article.
But Bourdain and Zimmern, on the Travel Channel, frequently emphasize that third world cultures, their usual destination, use ALL of the animal or fish in their meals, and that that animal protein is usually a small portion of the meal.
This is in contrast to Western-style meals where much of the carcass and internal organs are discarded or fed to livestock (another food issue entirely) and meat comprises 50-75% of each meal.
I don't watch other food shows, but I believe that's where the "to-die-for" meals are central. I have actually learned alot about ethical eating from the Travel Channel shows, which showcase other native cultures as yet untouched by the wanton waste and greed in our privileged culture.
-
Better yet
[Read the article: My Laughing Buddha is smirking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Get yourself a statue of Quan Yin, Chinese goddess of compassion, to preside over your kitchen. We all need compassion first thing in the morning, before coffee.
-
Where's that guillotine when you need it
[Read the article: The president's great sacrifice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush is caught giving the ultimate "let them eat cake" kiss-off. Just as clueless and he DID say it. Can we rise up against the Bushocracy now?
-
On the article
[Read the article: On armies, war and an aging Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just want to echo the (much earlier) point made by some commenters that this article doesn't deliver. Despite the interesting promise of revelations of the Israeli military culture, very little was gleaned from the military interviews and the only lengthy opinionating was done by media talking heads.
One of the few interesting ideas from the article was the diversity of nationalities present in his military interview pool and the dearth of indigenous Israelis. Surely that says something - is the military projecting the European viewpoint? What does it say about the population at large? Something? Not a sentence.
Not to mention that his writing meanders and he can't seem to form a coherent response to his material. Perhaps Grunberg should stick to novels (about the sexual significance of fruit, presumably).