Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

Home · Articles · News · Random Thoughts · When good intentions go...
. . . .

When good intentions go off the rails

Robert Downes - September 15th, 2008
There was an historic moment last month which Michigan Senator Carl Levin can be proud of: the U.S. Senate passed his legislation for the Great Lakes Compact by a unanimous vote, protecting our water for all time.
Or does it?
The Compact bans the diversion of water from the Great Lakes. The agreement has already been signed by the governors of eight states along the lakes, including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
“Senate passage of this compact will help us protect the Great Lakes from water diversions and preserve this invaluable resource for future generations,” said Sen. Levin in a published report.
The Compact is also considered a slam-dunk for approval by the U.S. House of Representatives, and President Bush will surely sign it. Plus, the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec have already passed the Compact.
“It’s looking like an unstoppable tide now,” said Cameron Davis, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.
So, why worry? Two words: offshore drilling.
Like the Great Lakes Compact, the struggle to limit offshore drilling involved many state and federal government units and three decades of legislation and solemn vows.
Congress has voted to ban offshore drilling on both the Atlantic and Pacific as well as in the Gulf of Mexico and coast of Florida every year since the 1980s, with the support of both Republicans and Democrats.
Why? To protect our shores from oil spills and eyesores, plain and simple.
But with the recent bump in gas prices, all of those years of work by thousands of people have been tossed to the wind by our presidential candidates and their parties. The attitude now is: “Damn right, we want offshore drilling.” And no one can seem to recall any good reasons not to clutter our shores with oil rigs and the threat of spills.
Even Barack Obama, who was initially against offshore drilling, had to backpedal to avoid political annihilation on an issue that seems like a no-brainer for voters who don’t have a clue about things like conservation.
And at the Republican Convention, a chant of “Drill! Drill! Drill!” filled the air, with few considering the consequences.
That’s why when Congress reconvenes this month, one of the first items on their agenda will be deep-sixing its commitment to protecting America‘s coastline from offshore oil rigs.
Hmmm... how about for starters, we place a few oil rigs just off West Palm Beach in Florida, the home of numerous millionaires and Rush Limbaugh? These wealthy conservatives will no doubt welcome the oil platforms with open arms.
Speaking of the new Compact, there’s even a push by some to revive the idea of drilling in the Great Lakes. Why divert our water when we can gum it up with an oil spill instead? Fortunately, no one seems to be taking this idea too seriously, although directional drilling under the lakes from the shore seems to be getting a fresh look.
So, we can all hope that the Great Lakes are safe for all time from water diversion schemes. They comprise 90 percent of the fresh surface water in the United States, yet less than one percent of their mass is renewed each year.
But will anyone be surprised if 20 years from now, our future presidential candidates demand the diversion of our waters to save the parched West from the effects of global warming? Will anyone be surprised if at a future political convention, the delegates are hammering the air and chanting: “Divert! Divert! Divert!”
Who will stand in the way?
Like with offshore drilling, the good reasons for protecting a valuable resource may someday be lost to serve a political agenda that no one has the courage to refute.
But victory is no time to fret about such things. Let’s raise a glass of that good Great Lakes drinking water and toast a fine agreement while it lasts.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close