<> Join in solidarity with French people over terrorist attacks | The Daily Gazette
 

Subscriber login

Letters to the Editor

Join in solidarity with French people over terrorist attacks

Join in solidarity with French people over terrorist attacks

*Join in solidarity with French people over terrorist attacks *Explain the government’s response to

Join in solidarity with French people over terrorist attacks

Aujourd’hui, nous sommes tous Français [Today, we are all French].

Rob Dickson

Clifton Park

Explain the government’s response to climate change

The recent discussion about global warming would benefit from clarification of three points.

There is a general expectation that people who chose to live in what is now or will soon be a coastal flood plain should be protected at general expense from their choices.

The ethics behind the assertion that those who have enough money to afford coastal homes should have their choices subsidized by those who cannot afford beachfront property requires some explanation.

If it is argued that the sea rise associated with global warming will make these properties uninhabitable to those not owning a submarine, then it follows that the government can use eminent domain to seize these properties at fair market value — zero.

It would be helpful to making the point that global warming will subject coastal property to sea rise damage if an explanation is offered as to why citizens in the potential flood plain cannot be expected to move out of flood-prone areas.

In particular, why public money should be spent on dealing with a problem that those most affected by it do not take the simple step of moving to dry land requires some explanation. Indeed, they do not appear to be arguing that the property tax assessment should be lowered to account for the perceived threat of global warming on the value of their property.

To improve the effectiveness of the argument that global warming is providing a rise in the sea level, an explanation should be offered as to why the argument should be taken seriously, when the government that advances this idea does not take it seriously.

I am not aware that even one member of Congress has suggested that the practice of traveling to deliver speeches be replaced by the use of the Internet to deliver speeches, thus reducing their CO2 (carbon dioxide) footprint.

On a more fundamental basis, the government has not clearly connected the cost of CO2 reduction, decline in living standards, and the associated decline in the weather effects associated with global warming.

Collectively, these two points indicate that what is said and what is taken seriously about the effects of global warming on the sea level are not connected.

Fred Barney

Albany

Gun safety laws proven to have dubious link to safety

If there were any doubts in anyone’s mind whether the Associated Press is severely biased to the left, the headline in the Oct. 25 Daily Gazette should put them to rest.

The article starts with a headline and subheadline that would indicate that stricter gun laws can be expected to reduce crime rates.

Strong statements are made that states with stricter gun control laws see fewer gun deaths. President Obama is even quoted as saying that we know that states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.

But the body of the article backs away, mitigates and sets conditions for the headline’s implications. One study quoted is from the Brady Center, certainly not an objective source. In fact, its data was based on information from only 28 states. The article admits that there are significant outliers on the side of loose firearm laws and low death rates. (It fails to mention Chicago, where extremely high murder rates accompany very strict firearm laws.)

Buried at the bottom, we are cautioned against drawing any cause-and-effect relationship between gun laws and gun deaths. This is the most credible statement in the whole article. Just look at our state: have murder rates declined since the enactment of the SAFE Act?

Since before there were firearms, murder rates have always been controlled by the number of psychopaths in society.

We should be looking at how to reduce that number.

Norman Perazzo

Glenville

I believe in God, but I don’t believe in gov’t handouts

In regards to the David Harsanyi Nov. 14 column, [“Religion losing ground to social policies”]: He claims he is an atheist, "unlike some people, I am willing to commit.” He then goes on to say, “Although I don’t have any skin in the game, (other than the skin that is singed from my flesh as I burn in the eternity of the flaming tombs if I’m wrong)."

Do I detect a hint of doubt?

First of all, I would like to say burning in hell for eternity is not a game. If you are in hell for a billion years, it will not take one second off the time you have to be there.

I just don’t understand how people can look at this beautiful world, solar system included, and not believe in God. The Earth is tipped on its axis just the right amount and just the right distance from the sun. Do people really believe this just happened?

America was founded on religious freedom and belief in God, and because of that we became the greatest nation in the world. Well, I don’t believe God smiles down on us anymore, and the things that are happing to our country proves it.

A quick word on Froma Harrop column the same day [“Why must Baby Boomers take the rap?”]: If Lyndon Johnson had not taken the money from Social Security to put in the general fund, we would not have a problem with Social Security today.

We could even get a raise this year, and now we have another president who admits he took billions from Medicare to help with Obamacare."

I never hear, 'We won’t have enough money for welfare or food stamps,' but always, 'Social Security will run out of money.'

Come on, seniors. Let’s get the vote right in 2016. The Democrats want to keep giving to those who don’t want to work.

I don’t begrudge giving people in need a hand up, but it’s a different story when it’s always a “handout.”

Anthony Monte

Princetown

Veterans Day should be a national holiday for all

You know, I was talking to my wife, Laurie, and wondered why only federal buildings were closed on Veteran’s Day.

I see the veterans that were working and thought, why is this not a national holiday?

A lot of our veterans and their families are in the work force working on this day [Nov. 11]. Why do just federal employees have the day off? A lot of them did not even serve.

I say that this should be a national holiday and celebrated by all — for the services that our men and women do for us to protect our great country.

We should honor them with their own special holiday so we can all celebrate what these great people have done. Thank you and God bless America.

Paul Blair

Sprakers

Come up with a plan to protect the entire Stockade

As former Stockade residents, we are concerned about the raising of individual houses.

The dtate Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, the Stockade Historic District Commission and The Stockade Association should be looking into a comprehensive plan that protects the entire Stockade.

Raising individual houses do not enhance historic preservation, nor does it make financial sense. In the mid-1990s, there was talk about a flood wall or levee that would protect the entire historic district.

It would be built by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Perhaps it is time to explore this idea again.

Janie Hayner

Robert Hayner

Scotia

View Comments
Hide Comments
0 premium 1 premium 2 premium 3 premium article articles remaining SUBSCRIBE TODAY
Thank you for reading. You have reached your 30-day premium content limit.
Continue to enjoy Daily Gazette premium content by becoming a subscriber or if you are a current print subscriber activate your online access.