E-mail letters, January 14, 2011
Old energy receives
Renewable energies like solar and wind have a right to a fair playing field.
Hans Croeber’s letter on Jan. 13 is an unfortunate example of the all-to-common sentiment in our region that renewables are not cost-effective. While solar systems do get a 30 percent federal tax credit, the myriad subsidies given to the coal and gas industries far outweigh what is given to renewable energy.
That’s right, our tax money has been directly and indirectly increasing these profitable industries’ bottom lines since their inception, over a hundred years ago. There is no reason to keep these industry entitlements other than corporate greed. Yet somehow they still get us to agree to them year after year — and blame the fledgling renewable energy for our ever-increasing cost of energy. What suckers we are for propaganda!
There is little to no maintenance and replacement cost to a well-designed and installed solar system over its 30-year lifetime. Certainly far less than what would be associated with the same amount of energy coming from other sources. And, as we encourage this industry to grow, we increase the ability of renewable energy manufacturers to recycle and make products in an increasingly environmentally responsible way.
At the same time, as we increase our energy independence, we buffer our economies from the constant boom and bust culture of oil and gas, we reduce the huge amounts of mercury belching from coal-fired power plants and the desire to flatten the Appalachian Mountains wanes.
While we haven’t found the perfect energy source yet, it’s not hard to see that renewables offer better outcomes on all sides of the issue, to those who believe fact, not fiction.
has hurt our society
After reading Rick Wagner’s column titled, “U.S. political rhetoric has often pushed bad taste, not insurrection,” I found myself agreeing with some parts and disagreeing with other parts.
I do think that the actions of an “unhinged” “maniac” were the key reason for the horrible attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others that led to six deaths and many injuries. Saying that it’s directly connected with inflammatory language is irresponsible. They are two different things and an emotionally unstable person will act in ways that deny logic and civility.
But to say that inflammatory language (that implies violence, harm or damage to another person) has NO connection at all to the events in Tucson is equally irresponsible.
Inflammatory language helps our society to be insensitive to the dangers of violence. We see this in movies, video games, news reporting, toys and many other parts of our society. To say there’s nothing wrong with using “gun sights” to identify people we disagree with politically when we are taught not to point a gun at anyone, loaded or not, unless we plan to shoot them, makes no sense to me at all. We need to begin to be a little more careful with the language that we use.
I also don’t care whether the source is “liberal” or “conservative.” The use of violent images in our language is not acceptable to me by anyone.
My Christian faith tells me that love is the standard and violent images have no responsible place in what my faith should be as a Christian. I’m well aware that religion is filled with violence, but I challenge anyone to suggest that those times of violence in religion have been the “high points” of our faith!
The title on Wagner’s column reminds me that political rhetoric was what the fathers of our country used that brought about the Revolutionary War. Words do matter and words can either cause great encouragement and strength or they can be very destructive and damaging. When will we learn to be differing in our ideas and still respectful? I long for that day, soon!
Josh Penry’s language
sticks in one’s craw
In his column of Jan. 14, Josh Penry seems a bit more subdued and reasonable. Perhaps the bite of the rabid Rick Wagner is wearing off.
However he makes a leap at a simile which goes rather wide of the mark when he says “this has always been a craw in my saddle.” I am familiar with a burr under the saddle, but unless Penry’s saddle has developed a maw that bites him, we can only guess where, I fail to understand.
Now if he were to complain that the loathsome Democrats were a saddle stuck in his craw, Wagner would be duly impressed.
Craving for publicity
drives many killers
I especially appreciated all three letters published in The Daily Sentinel Jan. 14. Tom Keenan developed the much higher causality rate of “freedom to text” phenomena that I’d not thought of while I considered the “freedom to own and drive’ automobiles.” And I’ve not seen “freedom to drive” deliberately indentified in Our Constitution.
David Foster made important point points regarding political hacks’ habit of bending any incident, especially spectacularly tragic ones, to some political end. Ralph Santos stood up for the right to keep and bear arms and the apparent absence of reasonable security.
I feel there is a very clear reason, as opposed to an excuse, why these things happen. It is a towering craving for publicity. Lots of people think they have something important to say but, often because of the media’s routine screening for the spectacular, bizarre, and especially, sensational, they can’t get it said before the masses. Other just seem to develop a nearly uncontrollable craving for the spotlight.
I can, somewhat, understand it when connected with such careers as acting, politics, sports, etc. but it doesn’t seem to be limited to those. In any case the craving can become so strong that the craver becomes willing to pay any price, even death, to be heard, get on the tube, in the papers, etc.
Consider the frequent schoolyard killings like Columbine. Ask yourself how many of these might happen if the perpetuators thought there would be someone to shoot back.
The names of the killer in the Tucson, along with those at Columbine and other similar incidents, are now engraved in our history and will probably be there for a long time. Mission accomplished.
Freedom is not free. Every that forms the foundation of our society, is paid for with some amount of freedom from somebody! Let’s be very stingy about how we spend our freedom