Stephen Raymond recently wrote a thoughtful letter (“A slant on slanted news,” July 12), in which he recognized the liberal slant of the Valley News as being a consequence of its pandering to the liberal bias that prevails in Hanover and Vermont.
He called for more balanced reporting, an inclusion of all views — conservative and liberal — leading to a better understanding of each other and a possibility of working together for the betterment of all.
He finished by exhorting his conservative brethren not to throw in the towel and simply cancel their subscription to the Valley News, but to continue to voice their opinions in the Forum.
Things may be worse than he thinks.
I recently submitted a letter to the Forum (“Norwich climate articles are simply virtue signaling,” March 4) lamenting the fact that some local farmers could not see the benefits of global warming and presenting irrefutable evidence that things are not nearly as dire as they may have been led to believe. The letter was severely edited.
Among several inconvenient truths, I stated that the incidences of severe weather show no increasing trend since records have been kept. I was asked to provide a source for my assertions (something I’m sure that the climate warriors are never asked to do). I did so by referring to the website Watts Up With That?, where the relevant proof from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the preeminent government organization in weather matters, is presented, (see “Reference Pages/Extreme Weather Page”) — only to be told by the editor that some ludicrously named “factcheck” website he had dug up had labeled the Watts Up With That? site (and, by extension, NOAA), a “pseudoscience and conspiracy blog,” and my offending assertions were expunged.
So, my dear conservative brethren, what we are dealing with here is not only liberal bias but active censorship, where views not to the taste of the Valley News editors never see the light of day.
J. BARRIE SELLERS
Hanover
Editor’s note: The writer’s March 4 letter was edited to exclude assertions of fact that could not be verified. He was given the opportunity to review the revised letter before publication and accepted the revisions.
Harvard Business School associate professor Scott Duke Kominers argued that, instead of banning single-use plastics, the right strategy is to tax them (“It’s Better to Tax Plastics Than Ban Them,” July 16).
No, it’s not.
Plastic has wonderful utility, weight and resilience. It has served us well for nearly 70 years. Our modern lives are shaped by plastic. So limiting, if not eliminating, its use will be costly and require huge changes of habit and culture.
There are bound to be failed and Quixotic attempts in these early stages, like restaurants serving metal straws and people stealing them. But there’s no question that, for the same 70 years we’ve had plastic, we’ve been unaware of, underestimated and ignored its harm to the environment.
So tax it? No. Eliminate it.
The same type of ingenuity that produced plastic will produce a less environmentally harmful replacement. Until then, let’s stumble along toward zero use.
GENE CASSIDY
Wilder
In a recent letter in the Forum, Willem Post disparaged all-electric vehicles claiming that they are not available at car rental dealers because the public doesn’t want them and because their maintenance cost-benefit ratio is inferior to standard internal combustion engine vehicles (“Electric vehicles are not the answer,” July 13). He prefers to drive his Subaru Outback. Outbacks are good cars. I drive one myself because I can carry my tools without resorting to a 4×4 pickup.
But he is wrong on his other points. The reason there is currently no rental market for all-electric cars is that recharging stations are too few and far between, and the public may not know where the nearest charging station can be found. Who wants to rent anything that may run out of juice in a far-away place? Regarding maintenance, with perhaps 100 times fewer moving parts than their internal combustion counterparts, all-electric vehicles are much cheaper to maintain and operate.
When electric charging stations are at close proximity to one another, so drivers are not limited where they can drive, and once the public sees the economic value in electric over internal combustion vehicles, the changeover from gasoline to electricity is likely to be swift and decisive.
One often-debated alternative is increasing the gas tax as a disincentive to driving gas guzzlers. But for that to be effective, it should be implemented on a regional basis rather than one state at a time. Success on that front seems a long way off.
In the interim, increasing the availability of electric vehicle charging stations, and helping those with lower incomes purchase electric vehicles, will be of greater benefit than belittling all-electric vehicles in our future.
JIM MASLAND
Thetford Center
The Concord Monitor editorial about the ‘Learn Everywhere’ program (“ ‘Learn Everywhere’ is no solution: N.H. education secretary’s plan is a distraction from the state’s failure to adequately fund schools,” July 6), asserts that “everyone’s goal” is “an education individually tailored to the needs and interests of every child, one that guarantees that students emerge competent to maximize their potential.”
That’s a wonderful sentiment, but this goal is unattainable. To expect it of our public schools is to ignore the myriad other matters that affect children’s lives far more than their time in school.
I would suggest instead that we adjust our sights and ask of our schools that they effectively teach students what we used to call the three R’s — reading, writing and arithmetic — which are the essential skills needed to function in society. If they would just do that well, they will have set children on their own paths to maximize their potential.
ANDREW TERHUNE
Canaan
Reading, writing, and arithmetic are important, but if our Constitution and democracy are to survive, these courses need to take second place.
The rally-goers and the religious right are totally under a spell, and they are bringing up their children to be just like them — people who are incapable of thinking on their own and need someone to think for them. That is so dangerous to the survival of a democracy, because their parents picked the very worst evil possible and they are teaching their kids to hate, lie, cheat, to love sex predators, be mean, be traitors, and the list goes on.
The three very most important courses are civics, current events and American history. If we aren’t able to help deprogram these young people, we don’t have a future. It would be so beneficial to this country if the schools could devote the first few weeks of classes in the fall to these important courses. After that, they could start teaching the other courses and continue with the three most important throughout the school year.
JIM DAIGLE
Plainfield
We encourage Valley News readers to write to the Forum to comment on matters of general public interest. We publish letters regardless of their politics, providing they are in good taste and address a subject of broad concern. To keep the Forum open to all, we request that you keep letters to about 350 words, and that you write no more often than once every two weeks. Please email letters to forum@vnews.com. You may also send a letter using the form at our website, www.vnews.com (click on “Opinion,” and then “Submit a Letter”). If you cannot send email or use the website, address letters to Forum, Valley News, P.O. Box 877, White River Junction, Vt. 05001. In all cases, please be sure to include your name and address, along with a daytime telephone number (for confirmation purposes only). All letters are subject to editing.