Thursday, April 08, 2010
Writers must not have seen political violence
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Pick of the day: Passing the buck won't stop abuse
- Letters: Illegal traditions should not be tolerated
- Pick of the day: Teacher's conviction should scare parents
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Writers must not have seen political violence
I would suspect that both S.A. Miller ("Tone down the political hate speech") and Hal Eaton ("Don't be incited to political violence," April 5 letters) were born in the late '70s, or early '80s. They obviously have no memory of, nor were they taught about, the viciousness and destructiveness of many peace and/or civil rights activists of the '60s and early '70s.
I watched the riots in many of the cities where buildings were ransacked, set afire and burned to the ground, stores looted and people killed. College buildings were covered with vile profanity as activists made their statements.
And CBS, ABC and NBC actually had to cover the events. There wasn't even a CNN. There was no FOX, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh to misrepresent the news. To blame them now is puerile.
Oblivious to the liberal, politically correct terrorism of these earlier years, these writers are appalled at today's political rhetoric and are scared of tea partiers holding signs.
A history of the 20th century not written by Bill Maher, Chris Matthews and Janeane Garofalo might give them a more balanced perspective. It would probably help the editorial staff at The Roanoke Times as well.
Impeaching Obama is the only answer
We now know that President Obama plans to cut our defenses in the face of nuclear buildups in China, Syria and Iran, to name a few. Clearly, this president has failed his oath of office and is emboldening our enemy and placing our country in severe danger saying he wouldn't use nukes even if we were hit with biological weapons. I don't feel safer. How about you?
He is basically asking al-Qaida to hit us with biological weapons. These are the actions of a traitor and he must be impeached immediately. In addition, he is purposefully destroying our economy as set forth by his Marxist minions sitting with him in the White House. Impeachment is the only answer.
Boucher's health care vote set an example
Rep. Rick Boucher showed statesmanship and concern for the welfare and views of those who elected him when he voted against the health care reform bill. Polls showed only a 36 percent approval of the plan. It will be detrimental to Southwest Virginia. It will worsen our access to health care.
The cost -- $1 trillion -- will increase (not decrease) the deficit. It will also increase insurance premiums and other health care costs to self-supporting Virginians as well as bring higher taxes. Even more serious, it is an unconstitutional infringement of personal liberty and states' rights.
Boucher is to be commended for studying the effects of the bill and for putting his electorate and the good of the country ahead of party loyalty. Everyone in the House and Senate should have followed his example. Noticeably, no other Democrat from the area did so.
A gallon of gas and 20 pounds of carbon
Re: "Emissions claim unsubstantiated," April 2 letter:
Ted Friedel questioned how David Orcutt could say, "For every gallon of gasoline burned, 20 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted." The answer follows:
A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6 pounds. Except for impurities, it is composed of hydrocarbons. Because carbon weighs 12 times more than hydrogen, most of gasoline's weight is due to carbon. During combustion, each carbon atom reacts with two oxygen atoms to yield one molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2). One oxygen atom weighs a third more than one carbon. The result? About 20 pounds of CO2 are emitted per gallon of gasoline.
There are other pollutants too. Some carbon atoms react with only one oxygen, so large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) are also emitted. (Later, the CO is converted to CO2.) Sulfur impurities in gasoline, if not removed, also react with oxygen, leading to sulfur dioxide emissions. Metal impurities react with oxygen, resulting in metal oxide emissions. In a more roundabout way, nitrogen oxides are also emitted.
Anyone who has ever been trapped in traffic can tell you: Gasoline is a tremendously polluting fuel. And, per gallon it releases 20 pounds of the heat-trapping gas CO2.
Unsupported claims aren't necessarily false
Re: "Emissions claim unsubstantiated," April 2 letter:
Ted Friedel seems troubled by David Orcutt's quote, "For every gallon of gasoline burned, 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into the atmosphere" ("70 mph costs more than you think," March 25 commentary). Friedel contends that the CO2 amount is unsubstantiated because Orcutt failed to mention where he got his figure and goes on to pose the question, "Is that because his statement is not true?"
Despite his experience with compressed gases, Friedel apparently does not understand basic chemistry. A few simple, well-established calculations, based on the weight of a gallon of gasoline and the average amount of carbon contained within, indicate that when combined with oxygen (O2), 20 pounds of CO2 are indeed produced (www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/co2.shtml).
Orcutt's figure is therefore reasonable. Every carbon atom in gasoline that combines with O2 produces CO2, which is 3.67 times as heavy as the original carbon. Orcutt's reported CO2 weight seems to be well-substantiated by known chemistry.
Just because a statement seems unsupported doesn't necessarily make that statement untrue. Let fact awareness begin.
Sorry that hate-filled Christians will visit
Re: "Church planning anti-gay protests," March 26 news story:
It is hard to believe in this season of Easter and Passover and new life that a group calling itself Christian, while at the same time preaching hate, is coming to Blacksburg.
As a Christian, I understand that Jesus' message is one of love -- love of all: neighbor, enemy, the widow, the orphan, all people. The Bible teaches that each of us is made in God's image.
Hate is not in any way what Jesus taught, and as a Christian, I apologize for the hate that this group is bringing to Blacksburg on Friday.
Consider the true costs of relying on coal
Can you imagine the panic in the country if dozens of workers were killed in an accident at a nuclear facility or power plant? Recent accidents in West Virginia and China highlight the poor safety record of coal compared to nuclear energy.
In addition to safety and health concerns, the production and use of coal has a negative impact on the environment, involves massive transportation efforts, contributes to greenhouse gas and toxic metal emissions, and produces large amounts of waste in sludge ponds.
Coal is an accepted energy source because of its abundance and prolonged use in the U.S. About 90 percent of the coal burned in this country is used to produce 50 percent of our electricity, while nuclear contributes about 20 percent. Coal is the only fossil fuel for which the U.S. has a positive trade balance. All energy sources have their assets and liabilities, but we often forget the liabilities of coal, the familiar source, and highlight those of the less familiar one, nuclear.
The costs associated with electricity extend far beyond current disputes over rates. So as you enjoy the benefits of electricity, remember the financial, environmental and human costs of producing it.
