Give conservative men what they want: abstain
This is a call for revolution.
Conservatives have made their case clear. They do not believe a woman has a right to control her own reproductive system.
They have sought to eliminate access to health care for women and sex education for our girls. Some have called those who seek insurance coverage for contraception sluts and prostitutes.
Never miss a local story.
They want a world in which only married women have sex, and only when they are ready to be impregnated.
I say give them what they want.
This is a call to all women who believe they have the right to control their own bodies — women in uniform, our nurses and doctors, our lawyers and maids, our CEOs and factory workers. I call on our porn stars and our merry widows. I call on every woman who is, or who has ever been, sexually active to make a stand now.
These conservatives want a world without the joy of sex? Give it to them. Because, in reality, women do not have to have contraception to have sex. They only need it to have sex with men. And since it seems that conservative men don't get that, I call on all women in our great nation to bring it home to them.
If you want men to believe that contraception is a right, show them in a way they will really understand. Stop having sex with them. It may be difficult, but you can do it, because you are stronger than they. Spread the word and be strong.
James L. Hartley
Eric Reece's March 4 column stated, "Is the ice cream man in February a harbinger of climate change, the canary in the coal mine, as it were?"
To compare events in our lifetime to prove a position on climate change provides little value. However, since Reece is a writing teacher at the University of Kentucky it does make good reading.
Whether I trudged through 20 inches of snow as a boy to school, or remember the 1974 tornados as worse than those this year is simply irrelevant. Climate change, whether man-made or naturally occurring, must be viewed over lifetimes.
Reece makes statements he considers factual about global warming and how it is aggravated by mountaintop mining, and then states, "the numbers I just cited are all facts, grounded in empirical research."
A recent letter to the Wall Street Journal by respected scientists states, "Since carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost."
Read extensively on global warming and make an informed decision based on your findings, and not on whether the summer is hotter or colder than you remember.
"Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is," said the Journal letter, "not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models."
What I do know, sitting here eating my ice cream, is my scientists are smarter than his,
Mark H. Porta
Recently, my husband and I volunteered at East Bernstadt to help clean up the tornado damage.
It was heartwarming and amazing to see how the community had come together to support the victims, the fire department deploying/organizing the volunteers, the local church bringing lunch to the volunteers and the local people sorting all of the material donations.
It was also uplifting to see volunteers from all over the state working to help with the cleanup. East Bernstadt is a great example of the true kindness and generosity that the people of Kentucky have.
Please consider donating to some of the organizations on this East Bernstadt Web site (http://helpforeb.com/) to help these outstanding local efforts.
Good weather reporting
As terrible as the March 2 tornado outbreak was, I would like to point out a couple bright spots. The watches and warnings sent out by the National Weather Service starting many hours in advance alerted most people in this area to the threat of severe weather.
As the storms grew nearer, I'm sure many people were tuned to updates from radio and television broadcasters, including the station where I work, WUKY-FM 91.3.
Without diminishing the efforts of all others, I'd like to point out the achievements of two stations.
As the storms moved into our area Friday, WLEX-18 and WKYT-27 dropped all their regular programming to provide non-stop storm coverage for many hours, in the process giving up many thousands of dollars in advertising revenue. That was, of course, a good business decision.
Bill Meck at WLEX and T. G. Shuck at WKYT used their powerful radars and sophisticated software systems to provide real-time information on the precise location of the most severe storms and their projected tracks. In the process, I wonder how many lives they saved.
Less clout for voters
The selection of the Republican presidential candidate is now expected to be one of the longest and most expensive primaries in history. The real losers in this primary are we, the people.
First, the longer the campaign, the more expensive it becomes and the more that money influences the outcome. Candidates need to spend and therefore raise tens of millions of dollars to keep advertising, traveling and paying staff to keep their campaigns running.
Ordinary people cannot afford to fund these campaigns and so the candidates turn to wealthy donors and to corporations to fund Super PACs. We still vote, but the importance of our vote is diminished when the name on the ballot is essentially selected by someone else.
Second, the longer the campaign the more acrimonious its nature and the more fatigued the voter. Witness the low turnout of voters in later primaries. The nastiness of the debate and the negativity of the advertising cause ordinary people to lose faith in politicians and the political process.
This seems like an ideal time to discuss reforming the primary process. Every other democracy is able to select a candidate and elect a leader in much shorter time.
Why can't we? We should reform the process so it runs over six weeks and regions of the country take turns voting first. The result would be a larger number of candidates participating, a reduced influence of money and a more engaged electorate. We all would win.
Ready to be colonel
I read the letter from Kentucky's 76th Secretary of State, Alison Lundergan Grimes stating the she "will continue to personally bear the expense for mailing certificates to the colonels who I recommend."
I am curious to know whether this expense refers just to the postage or does it also mean that she reimburses the state for the actual cost of the Kentucky Colonel certificates, the envelopes, the employee expenses for completing and mailing the certificates and any other related costs. I would also like to know how many of these recipients contributed to her campaign.
But I have always been the curious type, which leads me to one final question: Even though I didn't contribute to her campaign, didn't vote for her and don't recall ever hearing of her, can I get one of those certificates?