The most appalling and dangerous aspect of these global warming policies is that their basis of development comes from Al Gore's CO2 opinion; a personal view that's never been forced to public debate with any one of the thousand scientists whose documented findings are contraire.

Because today's Washington, D.C., policymaking is a surreal popularity contest, you might expect that tomorrow your elected official may vote his or her media darling to be your heart surgeon; picture Bill Maher (scalpel in hand) ready to cut you open.

The chasm between rural and urban shows succinctly through Congressman John Salazar's report that his rural constituency can expect to pay anywhere from a hundred to a thousand bucks a month each, compared with Congresswoman Diana DeGette's Denver constituency, which she claims will pay about $14 a month.

It's completely reasonable to demand representatives stop global warming/climate change policy movements - until scientific findings are brought to the forefront and then used to map out our directions.

If I were your representative, before proceeding on any bill, I'd demand honest answers to these questions: Who wants it? Who will benefit? Who will be hurt? Who will pay?

I'd order opposing views come sit at the same table, where together we'd hammer away until all lies, truths and facts are exposed.

No bill should be passed until it's proven that it will not harm anyone.

In voting "no," Salazar showed terrific objectivity, commendable courage and goodwill while honoring his constituency.

In contrast, Markey's "yes" vote showed her deaf ear to her constituency, partisanship and a willingness to allow celebrity rule.

Roni Bell Sylvester, La Salle

Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO  80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com

| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |