Story full of facts but placement distorted the truth
I was dismayed at the Dec. 19 article, "Land sale sweet for political donor," and the subtitle saying "Fish and Wildlife gives ... banker's firm $255,000 profit."
Not until Page 2 do you report the property sold for $102 per acre more than the banker's firm paid, and that F&W bought 2,497 acres. Four percent appreciation on the property in four years is hardly a windfall.
By stating the total profit on the front page and the per-acre price inside, you skew the truth to anyone who doesn't read the entire article.
The story seemed to take issue with the fact that F&W used no General Fund dollars, but it went on to say that "Kentucky spent nearly $255,000" (that fat number again) "more for the land on a per acre basis than" the previous owner.
Near the end of the article that occupies fully one-third of Page 2, the writer mentions that the sale price was equal to the lowest value of two appraisals.
Your careful placing of key information and how you report facts, apparently attempting to create controversy, is why many of us decry today's media bias.
You have incredible power to affect opinion simply by how you state and physically position information within your pages.
You continually prove you know that already.
Money talks too much
As I listened to a contrite former lobbyist Jack Abramoff on 60 Minutes talking candidly about the legislators he had "bought," I remembered Sen. Mitch McConnell's insistence that money is speech.
Money spoke to many Congress members who were looking for the funds that would purchase their re-elections.
That situation continues in Washington, and it will not only fund campaigns but also buy legislation that is desired by special interests with money to spend. The cure will only come if we can remove money from the picture.
We will need to end private funds for political gain, prohibit lobbyists from using money as speech, and elect candidates committed to living on their salaries. Greed should be shameful again.
It won't be easy and may take years, but let's get started.
An American hero
Another Look at Pearl Harbor. When the Japanese launched their attack, there was a black mess attendant, Dorie Miller, aboard the USS West Virginia.
In the heat of the battle, Miller aided his mortally wounded captain, manned an anti-aircraft machine gun and shot down at least one enemy plane.
Miller was awarded the Navy Cross, received from Admiral Chester W. Nimitz on May 27, 1942. Miller was later killed in combat.
Miller's actions at Pearl Harbor were described as "the only American victory on that day."
Curry A. Taylor
Flat tax sensible
What's wrong with a flat-rate tax on personal income? The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make, the less you pay.
I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's too simple, no more loopholes.
Statements once used to promote the use of nuclear-generated electricity are now being used to promote battery-powered automobiles. This latest "great crusade" is to substitute electricity for gasoline to power automobiles.
The idea of battery power for cars is an old one, and technology has improved since the first cross-America demonstration.
The promoters of battery power fail to mention potential problems that may hinder their ambitions. The problems I foresee are not with the technology, although battery-powered vehicles get very "tired" and finally stall.
The most challenging problems with battery power are social and political.
With the decreased use of gasoline the highway department will get less tax revenue with which to fill potholes in roads.
How many hazard placards will be required for each car? How well will these lightweight, and possibly frail, vehicles compete with the 18-wheeler traffic now on the roads? Where will electricity for charging batteries come from?
Authorities who speak and write glibly about "smart electric grids" have never tried to negotiate for right-of-way across the land of a greedy person. They can hold up a project forever.
Fred H. Salisbury
Violence a poor choice
As a member of Right to Life, I participate in peaceful activities aimed at educating the public.
Whether it is a downtown booth on the Fourth of July or the Walk for Life, I have been stunned by the anger and bad behavior of people who support abortion and therefore don't like Right to Life organizations.
I have encountered acts of violence from these people. I think my car has been deliberately damaged because I exercise my right to freedom of speech in the form of pro-life bumper stickers on my vehicle. Angry yelling, horn blowing and hand gestures apparently are the norm for these folks as well.
It moves me to wonder: Why are abortion supporters such a violent group?
Could it be because they support the violent act which takes the life of a precious tiny baby? The Bible teaches an important truth: Violence begets violence.
I feel compelled to clear up some mischaracterizations regarding the recent front-page story about Vineyard church and its new home.
What should have been a positive story about the church's progress was tarnished by a gratuitous headline, "Church spurned by Fairway neighborhood," and inflammatory comments like "anti-church campaign."
I'm also saddened by the implied sarcasm from the pastors in thanking Fairway for opposing them. Residents had legitimate concerns that were never addressed.
This current attempt at vilifying the Fairway neighborhood to is shameful and deceptive. Fairway warmly embraced the new occupants of the former school building, Lexington Hearing & Speech Center, after they met with residents and addressed concerns about traffic and parking.
It's completely unfair to characterize Fairway as a "largely upscale" neighborhood that "spurned" a church. Fairway is a warm, caring group of residents that truly fits the definition of a neighborhood and I'm proud to be a part of it.
Ronald J. Vissing