<> Not very happy with what Proctors is doing | The Daily Gazette
 

Subscriber login

Letters to the Editor

Not very happy with what Proctors is doing

Not very happy with what Proctors is doing

*Not very happy with what Proctors is doing *Climate change talk must include all facts *Lawmakers h

Not very happy with what Proctors is doing

My wife and I went to see the "acclaimed" play called "Once at Proctors" recently. We found it filthy and offensive, with constant sexual innuendo. The sound was very badly done as well. The only saving grace to this "play" was the one heroine who did not go along with the "hanky panky," as it was said in the play, but stayed faithful to an estranged husband who was to return and try again.

The more terrible aspect of this was all the hype on TV commercials for weeks on end leading up to its closing evening. This brings me to my major point -- the overabundance of advertising Proctors does. It got to a point for the "Lion King" that we would shut the TV off when its commercial would come on. This excessive abuse of the use of commercial time is not endearing us towards Proctors.

Now, it even gets worse. We are already seeing commercials for "The American In Paris," which is not set to show for another six months. You have to be kidding. Please stop this torture through the airwaves.

Barry Groat

Schenectady

Climate change talk must include all facts

The May 14 letter from Wallace J. Hughes is a classic example of "cherry picking" the data. He tells us the Earth is cooling, not warming, and in 2015 NASA reported a 10-year minus 1 degree downtrend had occurred. The only reference I could find to this news was an editorial piece in the Washington Times (not the Post), often described as having a strongly conservative editorial policy.

Seeking a more objective source, I went to NASA.gov itself. In June 2015, a NASA release reported that a new study "finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

It goes on to say: "Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends. Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets.

Note that this release was in June 2015, and did not include 2015 data. Since then a report including all of 2015, was released. It states "Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much." The 2015 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend. NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2015 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data with 94 percent certainty."

It further states: "Climate change is the challenge of our generation, this finding should make policy makers stand up and take notice -- now is the time to act on climate. The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degree Celsius) since the late-19th century, a change largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere"

Thus Mr. Hughes's comments are completely at odds with the most recent official NASA reports. I think we can discount his after thoughts about the call to address global warming being an international conspiracy, which will lead to a complete breakdown of our way of life. More likely, if we don't take on this challenge seriously, the impact of rising ocean levels can very well cause devastating economic consequences.

Bob Scher

Clifton Park

Lawmakers haven’t earned a pay increase

New York state has put together a seven-member commission that will be recommending setting the salaries of the state's judges, statewide elected officials and some members of the executive branch.

Of the seven members, three are appointed by the governor, two by the chief judge of the Court of Appeals and one each by the Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader. For the past several years, some New York state lawmakers have been whining about not getting a pay raise since 1999, and if I remember correctly that boost amounted to a 38 percent raise.

All of the over 200 members of New York's Legislature receive a base salary of $79,500 and most can make that climb to over $100,000 by their number of committee memberships, and throw in the reimbursement for travel expenses and overnight lodging and it seems they do very good.

They are not even required to produce any receipts when claiming money for reimbursements, the only requirement is for them to fill out a form and turn it in. Do you think any of us common folk would be able to do that on our jobs?

Now let's remember this is not even a full-time job. The legislative session starts in January and comes to an end on June 16. I looked at the session calendar and it showed a total of 65 days of scheduled work for the lawmakers. For the month of January they were scheduled to be in Albany for seven days of work. In February, they were Albany for seven days of work. March was their busiest, with 16 days. They rested in April, as they had six work days on the calendar, and 12 days of work in May. They finish up the session with nine days in June. Throw in the eight days of what they call legislative activity/budget hearing, and we get a total of 65 days of work from our fabulous lawmakers.

They will finish this session like all of the others, never accomplishing much of anything and get to go home for a six-month vacation.

Most, like Assemblyman Pete Lopez (R, Schoharie) will have no opposition this November. So he, along with most of his buddies, will be back next year to give it to the taxpayers once again. And back to that commission, they will be announcing their recommendation for pay raises in November, right after the elections.

Jerry Fiore

Summit

Female president is OK, just not Clinton

I was watching Fox news the other night, A retired general was on and he said at least he knew what Hillary Clinton would do with the armed forces. Well, so do I. She will keep downgrading the armed forces just the way Obama has done and is still doing.

America got caught with her pants down on Dec. 7, 1941.

In today's world with nuclear weapons, we cannot afford to be caught asleep. I believe that because of God, we survived that vicious attack. And now our president wants to apologize for bombing them. They started it, and I feel they should be paying for all that war caused us.

Some women just want a female president. I don't have a problem with that at all, just not Hillary Clinton. She is as crooked as a dog's back leg.

All you mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, just think of your kids somewhere in the armed forces fighting and they call for help. Will she send help? Look at the past for that answer.

She blames everything she can on the Second Amendment. I don't know how many times you liberals have to hear it. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

She wants to do away with our right to protect ourselves, while she is still today protected by the Secret Service, because she is running for the presidency and her husband gets protection for life.

She wants to do away with a industry that promotes millions of jobs and generates tax money.

We are slowly losing our rights. Soon freedom of speech will be gone. If you say something against someone, they call it a hate crime. It's just one way to take away your rights. If you want more of Obama, then vote for her, and all you people who want everything without working for it will doom America.

I just want to say I have no problem helping people who need it or with having a woman president. Margaret Thatcher did a good job for her country. I just pray it is not Hillary Clinton.

Tony Monte

Princetown

View Comments
Hide Comments