Chevron's solution is part of the problem
A recent news report regarding Chevron said that the problem, according to environmental analysts, was that only two of the eight air-quality monitoring stations in the area are in Richmond and none at the refinery.
This has been "the problem" for years. And nothing has been done.
What, besides hand-wringing and crocodile tears, can we expect from Chevron this time around?
What a cheap solution for not getting caught at poisoning the air. Just don't monitor it!
What lessons did Richmond learn?
Did Richmond learn its lesson by rejecting the "soda tax" initiative on Nov. 6?
Did Richmond residents learn not to try to help people defend against the corporate onslaught, the advertising, the "tasty" unhealthy non-foods that makes you fat and more subject to becoming cancer ridden?
Let's see, Richmond, did you learn to stop taking your residents under consideration via the ballot?
Norma J.F. Harrison
Death shows problem with abortion position
The recent death in Ireland of a woman denied an abortion, which could have saved her life, highlights the problem of religious influences on abortion laws, even though
Roman Catholicism greatly influences Irish laws. It, and some other religions, declare fetuses are human from the moment of conception.
Yet, knowledge of the gestation process argues strongly against this extreme belief. Twins aren't formed until days after conception. The brain isn't formed for another six months. Could an organism be human if it has a smaller brain than a bird?
Although a government must protect unborn human beings, no one knows when a fetus becomes human. Nevertheless, the government must define at which point a fetus must be considered human, since otherwise such horrors as abortion a day before birth would be legal.
In our country, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision wisely defined this point as after six months in the womb, since then the fetus could survive without the mother.
Use all income tax to service U.S. debt
The compromise that I favor regarding the upcoming, probable fiscal cliff is to use all revenue received by increasing income tax on the "evil" rich to service the national debt.
I believe that most, if not all, of the "evil" rich have already restructured their holdings. It would be interesting to see how much additional revenue materializes. I seriously doubt that President Barack Obama cares about our national debt. I believe that he wants to spend on programs that buy votes.
Will Obama receive equal treatment?
I got a kick out of the letter printed Nov. 21 from Vera Henry, obviously a very intelligent and hardworking person, chastising my fellow myope, Carol Dodd, for her reluctance to cheerfully send off her hard-earned money to the government for redistribution purposes.
Henry lectures us: "I remind you that the president cannot raise your taxes and spread your wealth around without an act of Congress, whose prerogative it is to raise taxes, albeit on a tax bill presented by the president."
How very true that is. So I would ask Henry, please be so kind as to explain, first of all, why it is that she and her like-minded friends continue to blame former President George W. Bush rather than Congress for our current economic woes, and secondly, will President Barack Obama ever enjoy the same criticism?