We've got mail!
Wind Energy:

Why The

Outrage?

To the editor:

As a Potter County resident, I have been following the ongoing wind energy controversy with a mixture of disgust and cautious hope. My interest comes with the realization that these discussions will only increase in frequency (and likely in intensity) as fossil fuels diminish and the world looks to "greener" sources for energy production. These are our first steps and it seems that many local residents would rather we continue to crawl rather than risking a bruise or two on the collective landscape.

I have read many arguments against the development of wind farms - ranging from shadow-flicker and blade noise to the impact on natural beauty. People seem to be so focused on the tiny ways that this progress would impact their personal worlds that they cannot see the forest for the trees. Yes these windmills are huge and yes they will be visible to all within a given radius of their placement. So what? There will not be a wind farm on every hilltop and there probably will not be one towering over your home - I urge everyone not to dramatize the impact this will have on our landscape.

I have also heard the argument that the windmills (though a good idea in principle) are a bad idea for Potter County as the county does not stand to directly benefit from the energy production. To those with this point of view, I ask: How would you feel if the residents near the coal plants that power your houses and townships had taken the same arrogant and narrowminded stance? Without a certain level of cooperation and selflessness, the world would be a cold, dark place.

For the sake of the future and due to the importance of taking these small first steps down a greener road, I would ask all residents to look beyond themselves and their worries. My hat is off to every farsighted individual (elected or otherwise) who comes together in support of these initiatives.

Rich Hayes

Coudersport

Farm bill flawed

To the editor:

Both the Senate and House farm bills would continue to subsidize the destruction of family farming and undermine the agricultural communities of rural America.

So-called payment limitation "reform" provisions would do little to reduce direct payments to the nation's largest farms. We found only five farmers in seven states that would be impacted by the payment limit provisions of the Senate farm bill, and none under the House farm bill. However, we found 73 mega-farms in those states that would see an increase in their payments.

The Senate and House provisions that are purported to deny payments to the wealthiest landowners are just as laughable. The loopholes in the income limits are big enough to drive a combine through.

For example, Nancy Pelosi (the 13th richest member of Congress) would still qualify for farm payments because most of her family's income is in her husband's name. And 40 percent of wealthy landowners could simply switch from crop share arrangements to cash rents and collect farm payments through higher cash rents.

No farm bill that undermines family farming is worthy of passage. We can do better than this.

A true reform proposal put forth by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Senator Charles Grassley (RIA) would close payment limitation loopholes and strengthen family farms and rural communities. Their proposal deserves our support.

Elisha Greeley Smith Center for Rural Affairs

Death Pentality: 'Ultimate Justice'

Dear Editor::

Imagine the most unforgivable crime, whether it be the murder of a pregnant woman, the vicious beating of an elderly person, or the rape of a child.

Now, make that situation personal. Relate it to your life. Visualize the ones you love being victimized.

Picture the man or woman who carried out this crime. What fate would you want for that criminal?

Capital punishment assures the proper balance of justice.

According to a 2007 Gallup Poll, 69 percent of the public supports the death penalty for convicted murderers.

When the death penalty is carried out expediently and routinely, it alleviates overcrowded prisons and an overwhelmed penal system. The death penalty removes the financial burden of keeping violent prisoners in a cell.

As for those who fear the death penalty could kill an innocent person, keep in mind that the reliability of DNA evidence these days lowers the risk of an unfair conviction.

When a person commits a crime as unforgivable as homicide, he forfeits his constitutional rights.

These rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most certainly a convict does not deserve happiness or liberty, and someone who has committed an appalling crime no longer deserves a right to life.

Often times, those who oppose the death penalty will reverse their views once the situation becomes personalized.

If someone were to harm your loved ones, wouldn't you want ultimate justice?

Olivia Johnson

Corning, N.Y.