Food shouldn't focus on profit
As a lover of our state's heartland, I applaud Cary Brunswick's March 29 column on the food crisis. The Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Hess, an administrator in the U.S. Agency for International Development, said: "People are making two bucks a day. And we're seeing food prices go up around the world."
I'm asking all of us to think about this question, stated by Eli Siegel, founder of the education Aesthetic Realism: "What does a person deserve just by being alive?" Do we really believe that there is not enough farmland in the world to raise enough food for the world's people? What makes food so scarce?
The Journal reports, "Rising prices for energy and electricity contributes, as does strong demand for food from big developing countries."
Must "strong demand" cause higher prices? Doesn't that mean that when someone sees more demand, they see an opportunity to make profit?
Writes Ellen Reiss, class chairman of Aesthetic Realism, about supply and demand: "A baby ... wants milk, and there are cows in America that can supply that milk, and people and trucks that can have the milk reach her; and therefore the baby should get the milk. It is hideously ugly to make what people need depend on their being able to provide someone with a profit. Yet millions of people in America right now are not getting good food, shelter, clothing _ though the rich American earth is sweetly able to supply these. Only when production in America is based on good will, usefulness to people _ instead of profit for a few individuals _ will supply and demand' become decent and sane."
When Americans finally object to people making profit off of the human need for food, there will be enough for everyone _ and that baby will get her milk!
Devorah Tarrow
New York City
We all pay for smoking illness
This note is in response to a letter from James Singer of Deposit, who called the anti-tobacco campaign a "crock" and suggests that Big Government is trying to control every move.
Imagine for a moment, Mr. Singer, that you work as the New York State Commissioner of Health. As commissioner you see that the state shells out the equivalent of $900 per household annually to give medical treatment to Medicare patients with tobacco-related illnesses. In fact, the state of New York is straining under the burden.
Since smoking is a habit that is hard to break, the best way to stem the tide of tobacco illnesses and the loss of state tax dollars is if people never start to smoke. Usually, smokers pick up their first cigarette before age 18. Once addicted, it is all downhill from there.
As commissioner, you might look at reasons that teenagers start smoking. If you do, you will learn that independent studies have proven beyond a doubt that tobacco images in movies, magazines and tobacco ads in retail stores have a huge impact on teen smoking. Teens are three times as likely to smoke if they see these tobacco ads.
So, it seems logical to put state dollars into tobacco-control programs to educate teenagers and the general public about the financial costs and health risks associated with smoking. Hey, the program may even save us some tax dollars. You would have more money in your pocket, Mr. Singer, if fewer people smoke. We honor your freedom to smoke, but who pays when you eventually become ill? Right now, everyone pays for smoking-related illnesses _ whether we smoke or not.
Marcia Kozubek
Oneonta
Kozubek is Otsego County coordinator for Reality Check, a youth-centered anti-tobacco organization.
Think about pedestrians
Back in February, I attended the DOT informational session that addressed the plans for improvements to Southside. Many of us at that meeting were disappointed that the improvements did not include designated bicycle paths. The DOT was overly focused on whether the new road would have intersections or round-abouts. I thought the DOT plan demonstrated a sad lack of vision. After all, we will be stuck with these "improvements" for many years _ years that will see more and more people biking and walking to save gas, decrease pollution and improve their health.
Linda and Ed Spencer wrote a good letter on Feb. 14, recommending a design that would get the bicyclist off the shoulder of the road (narrow, dangerous, dirty and full of sewer grates) and up onto a sidewalk shared with pedestrians. The Lifestyle section of The Daily Star on April 5 had a cute illustration on the front page showing a happy family bicycling along a pathway marked, "Bike Route." On April 23, a Daily Star editorial called for decreasing gas and using alternate ways of getting around.
Clearly, the city and the town of Oneonta need to commit to a pedestrian-friendly vision that incorporates and implements urban planning for the world of the future. The DOT plan is a tired re-run of the automobile-dependent designs that have led to the sprawl we see on Southside today. It is just more of the same. Can't Oneonta do better?
Rosemary Markert
Oneonta
Slowing down can save gas
I am as stressed about gas prices as anyone, but there are still plenty of folks out on the highways and byways driving hell-bent for election. They will ride up on your rear bumper and push you off the road if you don't get out of the way fast enough. If you do try to drive the speed limit, you are taking your life in your hands.
The oddest sight is seeing someone in a Prius or other hybrid doing 75 or 80. Nice gas saving. You know, the mpg ratings are based on 55 mph. Instead of just complaining about the price of gas, maybe we all ought to just slow down. How high does the price have to go before we will?
Earl Roberts
Unadilla
Print this story
E-mail this story
