Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor: Jan. 6

Vick's second chance doesn't include with dog

President Barack Obama recently phoned Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie and commended him for giving Michael Vick a "second chance."

According to reports, Lurie said Obama was "passionate about it," adding that the president said "it's never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail.

And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall.''

Now Vick says he wants another dog.

Society would never allow a child molester or a very violent person to adopt a vulnerable child, so we should never be in favor of allowing as severe an animal abuser as Vick to adopt a vulnerable animal.

Vick has admitted to forcing dogs to fight to the death and being responsible for or personally hanging, shooting and drowning gentle dogs who were unwilling to fight. That was his way of punishing an innocent being who did not live up to his expectations or demands.

It would be far too dangerous to trust a vulnerable dog with him should he lose his temper because the puppy or dog did not follow orders or displeased him. Our responsibility as animal guardians is to protect other species, not purposely put them in harm's way.

When Vick throws a football thousands cheer. That has to be enough. Leave the animals alone.

Michelle Harris-Shields

Lexington

The real issues

Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column "Partisan afflictions split nation, defy reason" (Dec. 12) shows me he doesn't have an open mind or common sense.

Everybody knows that President Barack Obama split the nation using words like "class" or "wealthy," pitting ourselves against each other so we won't think about what he is doing, which is spending all our children's money.

I do not like reading Pitts' articles but I do, to see what he's trying to push on people.

I myself believe everything I hear on the Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Leland Conway, Todd Shnitt and Mark Levin shows. These guys are real. They don't try to pull the wool over your eyes; they let you hear it from the horse's mouth — sound bites of Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest — and they have professional, non-biased analysts so you can make a rational judgment for yourself, not have somebody else make one for you that is biased or racial or plain bad. Note: If Rush and the others ever said anything other than the truth, they would have been excoriated.

Good points are being made on these shows. Why should our taxes go up? Why doesn't government cut its size, pay and pensions?

Why give billions to wealthy executives, institutions, banks, other countries to drill for oil and take away American drilling jobs totaling 10,000 or better? Why give billions of our money to illegal immigrants?

I could go on and on.

When is enough enough?

Larry Renicker

Winchester

Fluoride fear unfounded

I read the Jan. 1 letter on the dangers of fluoride that cited a Web site as its only reference. I subsequently spent about an hour on the Internet looking for a scientific study to support the stance and could find none. Believe it or not, folks, everything on the Internet is not valid.

I believe that opinions should be based on real evidence with valid studies to support those notions. The referenced site, Shirleys-wellness-cafe.com (which is one of many anti-fluoridation political groups), does not meet the standards of most people who want to know the real truth.

Fluoride has done much to decrease the dental problems America faced many years ago, and I find little evidence to support the claims of cancer, bone disease, kidney disease, etc., that these sites spew.

Look for real proof before you jump on the anti-fluoride bandwagon.

Bill Underwood

Lexington

Do the math on CO²

Carbon dioxide is an essential component of the atmosphere. Without it, life cannot exist. Currently, the atmosphere contains 385 parts per million (ppm) of this gas. Do you know how minuscule an amount this is?

If we let the distance from Los Angeles to New York City, about 2,500 miles, represent one million ppm, how far would an airplane have traveled from LAX on its way to NYC when it has gone 385 ppm?

Answer: halfway down the runway. If you double this amount of CO², your wheels would just be lifting off the runway.

All scientists agree that doubling of the atmospheric CO² will only raise the global temperature by 0.5°C (0.9°F). So how will the global temperature rise 5°C or more by 2100?

The old computerized bait-and-switch gimmick is used. Water vapor, responsible for 90 percent of the current greenhouse effect, adds another 4.5°C to the 0.5°C of CO² for a total of 5°C of super warming.

Does this sound farfetched? Well, this is the basis of the theory of catastrophic global warming. CO² is the spark plug and water vapor is the gasoline. The alarmists never discuss their theory and they definitely never debate it, because if they did, you would laugh at them.

They use arcane computerized mumbo-jumbo to keep secret from you their unproven assumptions that generate these impossible outcomes.

The "science-is-settled" spokesperson for this fraud is a meritless science student, who received a C and D in his two science courses.

George Tomaich

Lexington

Claim lacks proof

The letter "After condoms, pope can address teen pregnancy" (Jan. 1) encouraged readers to correct what was wrong.

Well, the entire letter is based on a faulty syllogism: Teenagers are getting pregnant. Some teenage girls are Catholic. All pregnant teenagers are Catholic.

The letter did not state any statistics showing Catholic teenagers have a higher teenage pregnancy rate than other groups. In short, this is a very insulting, hasty generalization.

Jean-Ann Kerr

Cynthiana

Conjecture hurts

It is surprising if not laughable for anyone, especially an agent of the University of Kentucky, to conjecture on research that might suggest there is no God ("Scientific light put on near-death experiences," Jan. 1). Well, that is stretching things a bit, but not by much.

To say that the God experience is the fiction of one's mind is to parenthetically imply that God may be of the same experience. Perhaps an amygdala gone rogue?

The researcher/author didn't deny spirituality, thank goodness, but I am sure that it is only an endorphin or two away from demise with the research.

I could counter with my research but that misses the point: In these trying times, research conjecture may be taken as fact and dissuade many people from believing in their God. If there is proof, then come forth, but I say beware of false prophets.

I feel uncomfortable with the liberty taken, with implied authority from the UK Medical Center, to promulgate foundations of sand that might erode the Christian experience. It doesn't matter how one spins it, the damage was done on the basis of a mere hypothesis.

Why would the UK board of trustees, private benefactors and the state/federal government continue to support heresy on the basis of conjecture?

I mean no ill. Just my counterpoint.

Ben Blyton

Lexington

  Comments