- The Washington Times - Sunday, April 8, 2007

The EPA and carbon dioxide

If unions are worried about job losses resulting from the Supreme Court’s ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant (“Supremely bad decision,” Commentary, Friday), then they have only themselves to blame.

The United Auto Workers and the United Mine Workers have worked for years with radical environmental groups, such as the League of Conservation Voters, to elect extremist Democrats and to oppose Republican judicial nominees. Just to name a few, they opposed the nominations of Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown.

These unions have also worked with People for the American Way to oppose the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court because these judges would not promise to support wholesale abortion. Now it is union members’ jobs that are likely to be aborted.

That serves the unions right. Perhaps soon we will again see a bumper sticker popular in the early 1970s: “If you’re out of work and hungry (and cold), eat an environmentalist.”

ROGER JOHNSON

Kensington

m

Setting aside for a moment the rather dubious merits of Alan Caruba’s argument against the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA., I find it difficult to fathom exactly how he believes a legitimate comparison exists between that case and the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 (“Supremely bad decision,” Commentary, Friday).

As an instructor of history at the College of Southern Maryland and a specialist in 19th-century American history, my astonishment at Mr. Caruba’s attempt to associate the two court cases was tempered only by the belief that it must have been done for sheer sensationalist value. In the same way that diehard liberals reveal their true colors through ridiculous comparisons of the Bush administration to the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler (or at least to Warren G. Harding and his Ohio gang), Mr. Caruba similarly discredits his argument through a leap of historical reasoning that defies logical interpretation.

I was disappointed in the choice to place Mr. Caruba’s piece in such an auspicious location. Although I disagree with his conclusions regarding the issue of global warming, I am more disturbed by his willingness to dredge up the most famous and insidious decision in the history of the Supreme Court for the sake of linking the proponents of government action to combat global warming to pro-slavery defenders and apologists in the American antebellum period.

This sort of rhetoric offers nothing constructive in the debate and only serves to debase Mr. Caruba’s argument against global warming. In fact, I would be willing to wager that when the future makes its judgments, Mr. Caruba and the skeptics of global warming will end up firmly on the wrong side of history (just like the judges that decided the Dred Scott decision).

JEFF FREELS

Waldorf, Md.

Pelosi’s defeatism

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is being attacked for the wrong reasons (“Nancy’s epiphany on the Damascus road,” Pruden on Politics, Friday). She’s being attacked primarily for embarrassing and undermining President Bush. But Mr. Bush undermined himself by displaying his incompetence for the last six years. (He’s also attacked for the wrong reasons).

The reason to condemn Mrs. Pelosi is that her visit, especially to terrorist hotbed Syria, is an open acknowledgement of defeat. In essence, she’s saying and showing the United States to possess the attitude: “We were wrong to go to war. We have no right to go to war. We’re so sorry,” even though the United States is constantly under threat of attack by terrorists.

It’s a horrific denial fest, made only worse by Mrs. Pelosi’s creepy head garment and pandering to the Islamic religious and social traditions that would end Western freedom as we know it. (Where are the feminists when you need them?)

Mrs. Pelosi is a pacifist, and we’re supposed to believe that the only alternative to her supposed “love of talking” is to love war.

Actually, hatred of war is a reason not to be a pacifist. If you hate war, don’t support Mrs. Pelosi’s policy of pandering to terrorists. She’s the Great Enabler. If you sit down and talk with people you know full well have every intention of destroying you, if they can, regardless of the talks, you’re worse than a fool. You’re on the other side. And the war against the West will continue, whether Mrs. Pelosi talks to the warmongers or not.

MICHAEL J. HURD

Bethany Beach, Del.

Reid’s disinformation

I must disagree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who called last year’s stem-cell bill “the only version that provides real hope to patients” (“White House backs stem-cell bill,” Page 1, Friday).

Thousands of people from all over the country, including scientists and church leaders, have communicated to him over several years the facts about stem cell research: 1) Embryonic stem-cell research has not helped anyone and it will be decades, if ever, before it does; 2) lives are already being saved, extended and improved using adult and umbilical-cord-blood stem cells and many more benefits are expected in the near term.

Mr. Reid’s deceptive statement shows his indifference to helping sick people as he actively promotes immoral and unproductive research.

CAROLYN NAUGHTON

Silver Spring

No in-state tuition for illegals

In-state tuition for illegal aliens in Maryland is the most unfair, discriminatory legislation ever written and should be defeated. (“Bitter debate marks in-state tuition bill,”Metropolitan, Saturday). Why give illegal aliens money for tuition when they are here in violation of our laws and have no right to be here at all? This bill grants special privileges to illegal aliens while denying them to American citizens and is extremely unfair. We are supposed to have equality in this country, not favoritism.

The story quotes Jennifer Miranda, a high-school senior from Baltimore, complaining that she can’t afford the tuition and cannot study for her law career unless the tuition bill is passed. Why can’t she and her associates go to work to pay for their tuition? I grew up in the Depression era and that is exactly what we did then and what people still do. Being inexperienced high school graduates, we could get only low-paying jobs, but we worked as waitresses, pumped gas, typed, mowed lawns, raked leaves and did everything we could to earn money for tuition.

Nobody gave us any money. Why shouldn’t Miss Miranda and her associates do the same thing? Many legal immigrants did it and succeeded. Instead of whining, we all went to work and made our own dreams and plans come true.

She is no better than us, so let her get a job, save her money and go to college when she earns it. She will profit by acquiring valuable experience on the way and will experience a feeling of real accomplishment for a job well done.

RUTH ELLSWORTH

Silver Spring

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide