Pay attention to pipeline leak
I hope Kansans are paying attention to the news from Arkansas. An Exxon Mobil tar-sand pipeline ruptured and spilled oily gunk into a residential neighborhood. The sludge welled up from the ground and ran down the gutters in front of homes. The people were evacuated. They didn’t even know there was a pipeline under their development.
The problem with tar-sand oil is that it is actually oil and sand. It doesn’t float on water, as did the oil in the massive BP leak, some of which could be skimmed off the top of the water. The tar-sand slurry sinks to the bottom, contaminates the rivers and groundwater, and is difficult to clean up.
If the Keystone XL pipeline goes through Kansas, our groundwater and rivers will be threatened and may be destroyed if there is a break in the line.
I’ve seen the maps. The pipeline runs frighteningly close to Wichita. But the groundwater is everywhere. The entire state, as well as other states, will be seriously at risk.
We must let our legislators know that the oil companies must be regulated to protect our health and future. No Keystone pipeline.
The Wall Street Journal posted data last week on airfare hikes since 2009 of 40 to 60 percent on certain routes from major airline centers such as Atlanta, Houston and Newark. This was despite the presence of low-cost carriers such as AirTran Airways, Frontier Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Virgin America in those cities. The article didn’t say whether these low-cost providers were present because of subsidies.
HARRY R. CLEMENTS
I agreed with “Bible not policy” (April 10 Letters to the Editor), which said Cal Thomas’ writings should be in the Faith & Values section of The Eagle. All editorial pieces and letters whose focus is to either preach or to justify a political/policy position by referring to the Bible (or other book of Scriptures) primarily to make their point need not be on the Opinion page.
Somewhere in the paper, Thomas’ religious editorials have a place. But the Opinion page should be reserved for serious thought, facts, opinion or comment, rather than simply quoting Scripture selected to support one’s position. This is basically a version of the homiletics professor’s admonition to aspiring ministers to write “WPYLH” in the margin of their sermon script, which means “Weak point, yell like heck.” If one’s position cannot stand on its own merits, then support it artificially, yell loudly or refer to some external source, hoping to gain support from the source, relevant or not.
Perhaps the test for the editorial board, in Thomas’ case, is to ask, “Would we print this in section A if Thomas converted to Islam and quoted the Quran through his entire editorial piece?”
RICHARD H. MOORE
One you love?
The U.S. Supreme Court is debating same-sex “marriage,” which is now legal in six states and Washington, D.C. The main argument for gay “marriage” is that you should be able to marry the one you love. If same-sex “marriage” becomes universally mandated, the following could ensue:
Using the same “one you love” argument, bisexuals should be allowed to marry a man and a woman since they love both. Today’s economy dictates that most households need two incomes. A three-spouse “family” could have two working and one at home with the children.
Logically, then, two bisexuals could marry two other bisexuals. A household of four would be of greater fiscal benefit.
A man could “marry” his brother – true brotherly love. And a narcissist should be able to many himself.
A couple of years ago, Australian Joseph Guiso “married” his dog, saying, “It’s not sexual; it’s just pure love.”
RICHARD A. HOPPER