Bridge, not ferry
TO THE EDITOR: I must agree with the numerous comments recently printed in the Letters column in your paper — the Lake Champlain Transportation Co. should NOT receive any taxpayer money. They are a private enterprise which makes sufficient money charging commuters for ferry service. If a new ferry slip is needed, then LCTC can pay for it out of their pockets — not the pockets of the taxpayer. If LCTC receives taxpayer money, then the state should step in and regulate the amount of the fares and the ferry's hours of operation!
What is needed at the Grand Isle/Cumberland Head crossing is a bridge.This crossing services many more vehicles daily than either the Rouses Point bridge or the, now defunct, Crown Point bridge. A bridge at this location would benefit the economies on both sides of the lake and provide the convenience needed for travelers who have business and family on the opposite side. Money collected from tolls on the bridge could help pay for the building and maintenance and the commute between Plattsburgh and Burlington would be cut significantly. Some may argue that the span of the lake at this location is too great or the water too deep for a bridge to be built. Nonsense! Attractive bridges have been built in locations where the span is far greater, the water much deeper and the weather conditions far worse than on Lake Champlain.
My challenge to both the local and State officials is this: Speak up about why there should or should not be a bridge built at the Grand Isle/Cumberland Head location and establish a commission to look into building a bridge. Why is so much money being invested in rebuilding the Crown Point Bridge when the GI/CH location carries far more traffic?
Steve Graf
Plattsburgh
Support for Brown Farm
TO THE EDITOR: An open letter to Gov. Paterson: It is with great concern that we have recently learned that your proposed 2010-2011 state budget includes the possible closing of John Brown's Farm in North Elba among other state parks and historical landmarks.
While we understand the magnitude of the states' fiscal crisis and the need for cutbacks and other cost-saving measures, we strongly disagree with the office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation's recommendation that John Brown's Farm be among those state parks slated for closure.
As you know, John Brown was a leader in the anti-slavery abolitionist's movement of the 1800s. He was an ally of Harriet Tubman. His farm was one of the "safe houses" used by her "Underground Railroad" to rescue fleeing slaves. He and his followers were men of action who opposed southern pro-slavery aggression, with force when called for. His anti-slavery activities have been credited with sparking circumstances that eventually led to the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery in our country. He is truly an American hero and one of the early leaders of the struggle for human rights for all people.
Each year for the past several years, I, and the chairman of our advisory committee, Mr. Joseph Lovece, Jr., have visited John Brown's farm in North Elba to pay our respects to this remarkable man. In Dec. 2009, both of us and the organization participated in several events commemorating the 150th anniversary of his death and subsequent interment on the farm. It would be a great tragedy if this historical site and the significant role it played in the American Civil Rights Movement were closed to the public.
I urge you to reconsider the suggested closing of John Brown's Farm in North Elba, and do all in your power to keep this important part of history open and accessible to the public.
Roy Innis
National chairman and CEO
Congress of Racial Equality
Cooper Station
Unfounded assertions
TO THE EDITOR: I can really see why people get confused on the issue of climate change. The recent article in the Press-Republican on March 14, 2010, by Fred Singer is a case in point. Mr. Singer calls the issue a "Swindle" but I believe it is he that is doing the swindling. His article presents absolutely no scientific data, zero.
With regard to his comment that our planet "has not warmed since 1998," NASA, The World Meteorological Organization, and The U.K. Met Office all say that the past decade [2000-2009] was the warmest in recorded history.
Another falsehood is with regard to the "hockey-stick" graph that has supposedly been discredited. In point of fact, this is not true. I submit that the interested reader can verify this by using any search engine to get all the scientific data on the matter. This graph shows, by a number of researched ways, that the recent temperature increase seen by our planet is unprecedented. The graph as a whole has continued to be supported by new data since its original publication, in a peer reviewed journal, in 1999.
Interested readers can review on-line "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States." The report was submitted by Congress to the president of the United States in June 2009 and integrates research data and conclusions from around the world together with federal agencies doing research on this topic. There is insufficient room here to delve into all the issues and misstatements and misleading comments in his article.
I sympathize with the public as they try to "separate the seeds from the chaff" and formulate an opinion on this critical issue; but this article does not help. It is all chaff.
Raymond Johnson
Chazy
McCaughey bad source
TO THE EDITOR: After reading Betsy McCaughey's "Health-care Bill ill-advised," I Googled McCaughey's track record regarding health-care policy.
In 1994 McCaughey misled the public about the Clinton health plan in her "New Republic" article, "No Exit." Her argument against Clinton's plan was debunked in a 1995 analysis in "The Atlantic." Unfortunately, the "New Republic" only recanted and apologized for printing her piece in 2006. A Tobacco Strategy memo exposed by Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone outlines how McCaughey's writing was 'shaped' by Phillip Morris, as part of a campaign to kill Clinton's health care reform, because it would have been funded by increases in tobacco taxes. McCaughey was working for The Manhattan Institute at the time. And The Manhattan Institute was funded by — you guessed it — tobacco companies. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909280009)
FactCheck.org refuted McCaughey's recent, outrageous "euthanasia" legislative claims. MediaMatters.org named McCaughey "Health Care Misinformer of the Year" for her "relentless attacks on health care reform by spreading falsehoods and distortions." James Fallows of The Atlantic Monthly described her role in the health-care debate: "She has brought more misinformation, more often, more destructively into America's consideration of health-policy issues than any other individual. She has no concept of "truth" or "accuracy" in the normal senses of those terms, as demonstrated on the Daily Show."
The Daily Show interview in August 2009 went like this: McCaughey would say the bill said something, only it would turn out that different words were used, or that it actually wouldn't say that at all. Jon Stewart would gently point this out, and she'd insist otherwise, and then start flipping through the bill, not really finding the proof or the documentation she was talking about. Stewart contended that McCaughey's take on the matter was ... "dangerous."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/betsy-mccaugheys-ideas-ca n 264970.html
In my opinion, taking McCaughey's words as gospel is "ill-advised."
Anne M. Morgan
Plattsburgh
