Hollow gesture by Republicans
I appreciate the token gesture by Republican elected officials and candidates to remove the Jefferson Davis statue from the Capitol.
However, it is hollow and politically motivated. If they really want to show their support for racial equality in Kentucky and across the nation, they can stop advocating and advancing racist policies.
One quick win would be to become champions and fight for the right to vote for all Kentuckians. Yes, Rand Paul has testified in support in the past, but there is plenty more he, Mitch McConnell and Matt Bevin could do to get their state party to stop being obstructionist and pass the proposed constitutional amendment. Let Kentuckians vote to restore voting rights to all Kentuckians.
Never miss a local story.
As for Jack Conway, he continues to disappoint me. Stalling his decision on the Jefferson Davis statue showed that he is not willing to do what is right but more concerned with what is politically calculated.
Your June 25 editorial was typical anti-GOP and covered many topics. When I moved to Lexington I thought it was extremely interesting that Jefferson Davis was also born in Kentucky and even attended Transylvania. You can understand how families in the state were torn apart.
And now the Herald-Leader wants to rewrite history and move Davis' statue to a remote location. Over 620,000 men died in the civil war including more than 250,000 Confederates. Most of the men on both sides did their duty as they saw it. They deserve to be honored even if they were on the losing side.
In this same issue, in bold headlines above the fold, you state Matt Bevin voted for a "white supremacist" in 2004, as defined by some obscure left-wing human rights group. You qualify this by stating he has adopted four black children. He is some racist.
Why you decided to couple the above with restoring voting rights for felons is beyond me. You and others of the extreme left want felons to have the right to vote because you know they will primarily vote Democratic.
Please don't try to snow us with any other justification. Part of the punishment for committing a felony is loss of voting privileges. Don't commit the crime if you want to vote.
Look west, California
I sometimes get a little tired of people crying "woe is me."
For example, the people of California have been complaining loudly about their drought. In my seventh-grade geography class every time I saw a map of the United States there was all this blue color to the left of California. Further investigation revealed that it was water.
But it's salt water, you cry. Israel is a desert and yet it is presently negotiating to sell excess water to Jordan. Arabia is a desert, but they don't seem to have a shortage. Maybe their water rates are too low at $0.002 a gallon (Wall Street Journal, May 5) while I pay $0.0136 a gallon.
Maybe the governor could divert some of the $2 billion for a bullet train to nowhere and build a desalination plant, then we could get back to raising almonds, like God intended.
We have heard for 25 years that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is settled science supported by the vast majority of scientists; therefore, consensus makes it true.
Consensus is the opposite of science; consensus is what Galileo fought to overcome and what Pasteur debunked. Consensus is anti-science.
The scientific method requires testing a theory against real world data. But the, CAGW hypothesis has been immunized from running the scientific gauntlet by refusing to debate its opponents, instead attacking them with demeaning innuendos.
Peer review, a device used to protect the "consensus," is no more than a review, usually by three volunteers familiar with the subject, to determine if the paper is well presented and moderately sound. It does not guarantee validity. The proponents of CAGW have perverted this intention to one of censorship.
The Climategate emails of 2009 prove that a small but dedicated group of reviewers have purposely used peer review to prevent the publication of papers exposing errors in CAGW theory.
The United Nations Climate Change Panel has used a bait-and-switch tactic to substitute computerized scenarios for real world data. It's all contrived using consensus and computer models disguised as science to justify a radical political agenda.