Letters to the Editor
radcenterhumanist
Published Letters: 4 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Sad Performance by Kennedy
[Read the article: The gang that couldn't question straight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the saddest performances from what I've heard of the hearing was Ted Kennedy's opening today. It turns out that Oren Hatch's irritatingly inane question on the Vanguard affair (i.e is 12 years "initial") was a perfect set up for Kennedy to waste a big portion of his time and come across as an inane and impolite ass.
I've heard enough to conclude that the Vanguard question was not as big a deal as people have made it to be. It has become a "red herring" that has helped the the Democrats waste a tremendous amount of time that could be better spent. While it shows that Alioto is imperfect, the Vanguard questioning has made Alioto's intellect look far superior to the committee members.
-
What matters about Lieberman
[Read the article: He really was a Fox News Democrat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In a quick skim through the posts, I didn't see much on the things I see wrong with Lieberman.
I think he cost Gore the election in 2000 because he speaks with a moralizing tone and voice that give more people the creeps than they attract.
The main problem with Lieberman's religion is not that he is Jewish, but that he is fundamentalist or near to it. He has a very hard problem understanding the point of view of people who believe that the First Amendment means that government should not promote or financially support any religion over any other religion or non-religion. He's with the Republican Right on "under god" in the pledge, other "faith-based" initiatives, and other faux-patriotic inititatives.
Unfortunately, with many voters, the fact that Lieberman in Jewish does matter in a negative way. It would matter much less if he showed some ability to recognize that Israel is not always justified or wise in its actions.
As others have noted, Lieberman's worst tendencies are his strong alignment with the Bush administration on Middle East policy, his acceptance of their supreme court choice choices, and his criticism of those of us who believe it is our patriotic duty to speak up when required by the principal "my country, if wrong, make it right".
He should be voted out of office for poor judgement and lack of competence, if for nothing else.
-
Don't ignore the subsidies to non-organic farmers.
[Read the article: Squeezing out local produce]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Criticisms directed at organic farmers by some letter writers ignore much that was not presented in this story. Organic farmers compete with non-organic farmers for a limited pool of works - both documented and undocumented. I doubt that they are any more likely to use the undocumented workers than are other farmers.
In addition, the non-organic farmers and the importers are subsidized by tax policies that reward natural resource consumption and punish the use of labor and brainpower. We all pay a price for petroleum based fertilizers, mechanized farming, and long-distance shipping. We subsidize the non-organic farmers through our payroll and income taxes, damage to our air and water, health care for farm-workers and other residents of farm communities made ill by pesticide and fertilizer exposure, depletion of soils, corruption of politics in our own and developing countries....
Organic agriculture could compete much better if we applied a rational, scientifically based tax every time something took something out of the earth, or created a damaging byproduct.
Tax waste, not work!
-
The issue IS in the details. We must tax waste, not work to solve problems with energy, resources and the environment.
[Read the article: The trouble with ethanol]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As Leonard stated, the issue is in the details. We can gain much by accessing the tremendous amount of "low hanging fruit" of energy efficiency and resource conservation/preservation. However, our economy" is designed to prevent its efficient use. The solution is simple in concept, difficult in execution. We should tax waste (resource consumption) not work (income and payroll taxes).
Our current economy and political system is based on taxing humanpower and brainpower, which are the ultimate renewable resources. As with compound interest, this approach makes it very expensive to apply rational solutions, especially those developed by engineers, scientists, economists, welders, machinists, and others whose net tax rate approaches 50%. Other industries, such as recycling, work best with large supplies of low cost manual and semi-skilled labor -- near the source. The rolled up taxes make a big difference here, too - as wages must cover the rolled up taxes in housing and other areas.
During my 25 year career in energy industries (natural gas, petroleum refining, and electric power development) I have seen tremendous waste of resources because it was more expensive to fix leaks and process inefficiency than to let them continue. At the time I worked in the volatile refining industry, projects that were not vital to keeping the system operating needed a one year payback or a government mandate to get funded.
Our tax money should be paying engineers, environmental scientists, and environmental accountants to find the correct answers and balanced resource tax rates. Instead, we're wasting our wealth on IRS accountants, corporate tax accountants and CPAs.
The current system rewards those who control the resources. The rest of us pay the price for the collateral damage.