Regarding fuel economy, are we surprised the Bush/Cheney environmental destruction team has no desire to raise such standards? The author does an excellent job of framing the issue but some important tidbits deserve to be included in making the case against the Bush administration. Lets start with the fact that the administration has handed billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks to the oil industry. Then there is the $3.6 million plus that the Bush/Cheney campaign has received from oil and gas executives. A last, but certainly not least, point is the $18 billion Halliburton (Cheney's old company) has received to rebuild Iraq—$7 billion in no-bid contracts. The Bush administration's actions have repeatedly demonstrated their blatant disregard for our environment and our pocketbooks. What is our other option?
According to the League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan political environmental organization, (which has given John Kerry a 92 percent lifetime rating and W the first F ever on a presidential scorecard—even Bush Senior and Reagan did better!) John Kerry plans to initiate a host of initiatives to set us back on the right track. He will increase funding for research into cleaner, renewable energies thereby creating millions of jobs. He is not in bed with the oil industry so he will immediately work to increase fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks. There will also be incentives and tax breaks for businesses and homes that seek to construct or upgrade to more energy efficient standards.
The Kerry energy plan is in stark contrast to W's and more info can be found at www.lcv.org. Check it out, educate yourselves! With so much at stake, don't we deserve a president who will put our interests above those of the oil and gas industries?
Busy Signals
In The Name Of Progress And Growth
Anyway, each side had their good points and pointless ones. Westside home owners make a mental note: Next time you buy a house that only has one road to get to it, don’t take the word of a real estate agent or city councilor. When it came to cultural issues I was dumbfounded by some statements of those in favor of the extension. You know, the rest of the world is smart enough to build their modern cities away from the ancient ones. I don’t mean to sound racial, but I often hear Caucasians talk about how they long to visit Europe and visit their homelands. Think if England decided to build a road through Stonehenge, or if Greece built homes closer to the Pantheon. Those with European blood have historic sites to visit because their ancestral countries had the foresight to preserve them. Native Americans have very limited ancient indications that they were here. But that’s OK because “we still have Paris.” Would the rhetoric have changed if Kit Carson had built a home or a fort at the end of Unser Blvd? If that were the case, would there even be an Unser Blvd?
In the end, the ones in favor of progress got what they wanted. In 20 years when they have grown tired of how crowded their neighborhoods have become, they’ll move to a more pleasant part of town and sell their homes to landlords. Later they’ll complain about how the Westside has gone to hell and create ordinances to clean it up. They will probably even use the Petroglyphs as the reason. And as usual, the politicians will promise that growth is how they will pay for it all.
Letters should be sent with the writer's name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to letters@alibi.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.
