To the editor:
Perhaps it is a good indication that the First Amendment is very much alive when I read something that infuriates me.
Most recently, John Stossel claimed (mathematically correctly) that India had the same population density as New Jersey (Wednesday column). He had used this fact previously to justify a dangerous hypothesis that Earth could sustain an even larger population.
Missing from this comparison is that a disproportionate amount of global hectares is required to sustain the population of New Jersey in the fashion residents have become accustomed to. Sixty-eight million acres in the United States are devoted to livestock feed alone. I would conjecture that just the pampered pets in New Jersey (1.1 gha for a large dog) consume equal to or more global hectare than the population of Mumbai.
In a recent column, Mr. Stossel also meekly accepted a rebuke from a petro-statist who ridiculed his riding a bike to work because doing so accomplished little savings.
That's right, we should do nothing so the enemies of America can grow stronger. Besides, the oil apologist is plain flat wrong. Changing our petro-consumptive behavior will be the most impactful thing our society can do.
Mr. Stossel's smug conclusions are often wrong -- and wrong for America. Astonishingly, Mr. Stossel's hook is that we are all sheep and have been misled. Talk about "unintended consequences."
To the editor:
Up until now I never took recycling seriously. I thought, "Let everyone else do it, because I don't have the time and it's not that important."
But it makes me sick reading about the oil spill in the Gulf. Every day it gets worse, and I don't think our world will recover from it for a long time. It made me realize that all of us have a responsibility to our world, and to help keep it the way we found it.
We all need to do our share, and each of us can start with a good recycling program.
It's not something we can think about anymore. We all need to do our part before it's too late.
To the editor:
Is it possible to reconcile the philosophy of European socialism with the concepts of our constitutional republic? It appears not to be the case, as the foundational personal liberty provided for within our Constitution of limited government is anathema for the state control necessary to control citizens in the socialistic "utopias" we now find throughout Europe.
A merger of these political philosophies would necessarily require the extinguishment of one type of government for the survival of the other.
A great degree of the widespread consternation currently seizing our nation is based upon the struggle between militant progressive efforts to corrupt our constitutional precepts and to institute European socialist agendas on one side; and efforts to preserve and adhere to our original foundational philosophy as a nation on the other. The political challenge is clearly delineated in the battle cry of the progressive faction demanding "Change!" Indeed, with the reins of government having recently been handed to this progressive faction, we have witnessed the promised "change" in the quick implementation of many socialistic programs throughout our society, but often with little public support.
The poster child of all socialistic governments is the "welfare state" agenda. This necessary element of socialism presupposes state control over all aspects of society in order to allow the government redistribution of personal assets and a socialistic ordering of all society. Personal liberty, with its unalienable rights, must always be subjunctive to this state determination of what is allowed. Citizens must exist for the good of the state, and uniformly comply with state edicts.
Of course, such requirements of a "welfare state" are diametrically contrary to our nation's heritage and traditions; thus, we have this struggle.
The conclusion of this struggle will determine not only the nature of our future government but, much more importantly, the quantity of individual freedom we will experience. Of the many challenges to this greater nation to which our people have successfully responded, this fundamental philosophical attack may prove to be the most dangerous. We must address it as such in our current electoral process.
To the editor:
To all the Republicans who are concerned that Sharron Angle is "too conservative" to win in November:
Sharron Angle won Tuesday's Senate primary because she was the finest conservative candidate. Not just a Republican, mind you, but a conservative. I am not a member of any "Tea Party," but I voted for Ms. Angle because I am through with "moderates" who just want to play nice while Barack Obama destroys this wonderful country. John McCain was a moderate, and look what happened to him in 2008.
I am grateful to Danny Tarkanian for immediately throwing his support behind Ms. Angle. I have no doubt that Ms. Angle will defeat Harry Reid in November, and I am proud to live in Nevada, where we will make that happen.