Scrooge-like letter
blames the victims

To the editor:

As the holiday season kicks off, we can thank Robert DeMarinis ("There are better ways to fight global warming," Nov. 21) for reminding us that the dark sentiments of Charles Dickens' most famous villain, Ebenezer Scrooge, are still with us - surfacing periodically in public debate on the issues of the day. In a puzzling letter to the editor, DeMarinis insists that there is a way to fight global warming without restricting his right to drive an SUV. Disappointingly, DeMarinis never provides anything remotely resembling a rational response to global warming. Instead, he launches an attack on certain population groups who have recently borne the brunt of natural disasters.

Picking on Africa and New Orleans (both coincidentally populated by blacks) DeMarinis declares whole populations stupid for staying in places where they are sure to face flood or famine. He blames people for living in the deserts of Africa, but, curiously, he doesn't challenge the folly of building homes in fire-prone deserts outside San Diego.

Global warming is caused at least in part by human activity, but its effects are destined to be felt in what might otherwise appear to be natural disasters. DeMarinis does not accept any of the blame for having caused global warming, but he is more than ready to blame the victims of its consequences. It is my hope that, like the Dickens character, DeMarinis will someday disavow his misanthropic public statements. Global warming doesn't just threaten people in remote areas with dark skins. If DeMarinis is fortunate enough to own an SUV, I would hope that he consider it a blessing, not evidence of his Darwinian superiority over others. As we all face a future fraught with cataclysmic risks and uncertainties, we must collectively seek rational strategies for mitigating the effects of global warming, while at the same time striving to uphold the humane values that set us apart from other creatures.

Charles Adler
Attleboro

Common sense absent
from letter on warming

To the editor:

I have read many letters to the editor by the DeMarinis duet but the one on Nov. 21 ("There are better ways to fight global warming," Robert DeMarinis letter) goes beyond any borders of common sense. The original intent of the letter was to denigrate any theory supporting global warming. Initially you might feel that some of his views had some warrant but then he drifted off to blaming those countries who have weak economic structures and large populations as a reason for global warming.

At that juncture he wrote the following: "If you can't house and feed yourself in African deserts, don't live there and don't make more babies." What a brilliant idea, why hadn't someone come up with it sooner? All those people have to do is get in their private jets and fly to their soon- to-be-built palatial mansions in the Arizona desert.

He completed his letter by saying "stop making me give my money to people who will take my money but keep on doing those same stupid things." Well, many of us do just that, but I believe we call it charity.

Richard Audette
Attleboro

Don't start worrying
until warming stops

To the editor: Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice. From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an "interglacial phase," or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.

Don't panic when you hear global alarmists warning the Earth may have warmed almost 1 degree in the last 200 years. Although this still hasn't yet been proven, it is in fact exactly what should be happening if everything is normal.

If global warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!

Fred Glover
North Attleboro

Why earlier primary
is good for Mass.

To the editor:

In reading the story "Vote move raises issues" Nov. 17, I was struck by state Sen. Scott Brown's opposition to moving the primary up a month from March 4 to Feb. 5 of 2008. He says it doesn't pass the smell test as he goes on to question how it may hurt Mitt Romney. First of all, I agree with state Rep. Betty Poirier who said it ought to help Mitt Romney, by giving less time for challengers to come in and campaign. If Mitt is in trouble getting the Republican Party to back him in Massachusetts right now, he is in big trouble. Perhaps he has made one too many jokes about Massachusetts on the campaign trail. I think, however, the whole point of moving it up a month is being missed by Brown.

All of the "Super Tuesday" states have moved up the presidential primaries except for four states, which means there will be a clear front-runner by the time March 5 arrives. It is likely that some of the candidates may not even be running by then.

This means that the candidates would probably skip Massachusetts on campaign swings, leaving us without the economic and political benefits of hearing the candidates make their case to us. I, for one, would like to see the candidates of both parties come to Massachusetts and vie for our electoral votes as part of the process.

The decision should not be based on which candidates might be helped, but on what is best for Massachusetts.

Bill Bowles
Attleboro

THIS WRITER is an Attleboro city councilman. The change to a Feb. 5 primary has been adopted in the interim since this letter was received.

Partial-birth abortion ban
loophole is diabolical

To the editor:

The right to life is the first right we are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution while every abortion takes the life of an unborn baby.

According to a published report, abortionists are injecting fetuses with lethal drugs before procedures. The injections are generally done in abortions after 18 or 20 weeks gestation.

As you can see, abortionists have already concocted a new, diabolic way to get around the partial birth abortion. To avoid partly delivering an unborn baby during the late-term abortion some abortionists are giving these children a lethal injection. Like the type of injection they give on death row! These abortionists want to assure that the unborn child is dead in the womb with no chance that it might be born alive!

Such abortionists are trying to "protect" themselves from any legal liability from the ban on partial birth abortion. Their selfishness exterminates what little chance the unborn baby had at surviving, while at the same time increasing the risks to their female patients.

The question is: What are you going to do about it?

Donald A. Girard

Plainville

THIS WRITER is director of the local chapter of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

Substitute for turkey
just doesn't cut it

To the editor:

Why would Alexandra Welch-Zorba ("Meatless platter, clear conscience," Nov. 21) try to spoil Thanksgiving for us turkey eaters? Trying to guilt us into eating "tofurkey" simply won't work. Having tried tofu and other artificial attempts at copying the taste of meat many times, there is simply no comparison.

Tofu is tasteless, and no matter how hard you try to dress it up, it doesn't cut it as a real meal.

Soy-based "meats" are loaded with estrogen-like hormones and taste phony.

Besides, there is a food chain and humans are higher on it than turkeys. I would bet serious money that a lion or tiger or cougar would have no qualms about chowing down on Ms. Welch-Zorba.

As for the turkey becoming the national bird, Ben Franklin was the only bird singing that tune (thankfully). Even very smart people sometimes make mistakes.

Anna DeMarinis
North Attleboro