Show off your holiday lights and you could win an iPad! Enter your photo by December 13. Winner will be selected by popular vote.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
The public lacks political clout
We have an elected Senate and House populated with many members whose main allegiance is to big corporations like Exxon, defense contractors, Wall Street moguls and banks too big to fail.
Take the recent gun-control saga that followed the Newtown massacre as a prime example of the public’s lack of input.
The massacre was the second such mass shooting since the Virginia Tech massacre, but these tragedies could not overcome the determined efforts of a well-organized National Rifle Association lobby against simple background check legislation — though polls showed overwhelming support among the public, together with the bulk of the NRA membership, for expanded checks.
Why? The allegiances of many of our legislators have been bought by NRA money.
Allegiances of this type also have resulted in legislation that has benefited big banks far more than the public.
It has also benefited the campaign coffers of many of our elected officials, who did the bidding of banks in passing credit card legislation, for example, written by bankers to enrich banks at the expense of the public.
Climate skeptics warrant skepticism
In Philip Unger’s “Be skeptical even of scientists” (May 26 commentary), a now well-known scandal involving social psychologist Diederik Stapel’s faking of the results of his research is misused to make a point about global warming related to human activity.
The headline on the second page of the article, “In era of misinformation, one needs to be skeptical,” is instructive.
Unger maintains that “Climategate” leaks “showed that bad science was used to ‘confirm’ environmental claims, warnings and predictions.”
Wikipedia: “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
The scientific consensus that global warming is related to human activity remained.
Be skeptical of articles calling for skepticism.
JOHN A. SABEAN
Obama’s media ties have been too cozy
The most “transparent administration in history” finally is being exposed for what it really is.
Why did it take so long, many are asking.
It could be because CBS News President David Rhodes’ brother, Ben Rhodes, is President Obama’s deputy national security adviser. Maybe it is because ABC News President Ben Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is special assistant to Obama.
Then again, it could be that CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Tom Nides, former deputy secretary to Hillary Clinton.
No, it couldn’t be. Move along, nothing here.
There was Fast and Furious, where no one knew anything, then Benghazi-gate, which Obama has referred to as a bump in the road and a sideshow.
Surfacing now is IRS-gate and Associated Press-gate.
Twice uninformed voters put a community organizer in the White House.
Obama is upholding his promise to fundamentally change America, tearing it apart chunk by chunk.
The culture of the White House sets the tone for the administration. Obama’s administration is a political circus with no ringmaster.
LEETA W. SINK
Benghazi attack was different
Re: the letter by Ken Wilburn in the May 24 Roanoke Times (“Selective outrage against Obama”):
There are a couple of differences between the attacks on diplomatic personnel and facilities during the George W. Bush years and the Benghazi debacle.
The attacks during the Bush presidency were by very small groups or single suicide bombers with little or no warning.
The attack in Benghazi, on the other hand, was a well-planned, coordinated attack by militant jihadists.
The climate in Benghazi had been perilous for months, causing the ambassador to ask for more security, which was denied repeatedly.
The biggest difference was the blatant lies told by some in the Obama administration in an attempt to cover up their combined dereliction of duty.
DOUGLAS M. GLASS
Weather JournalPossible scrape with snow Tues