Letters: Nov. 21, 2018

Trump: ‘Thou dost protest too much”

The letter from Gerald Eaton (Nov. 14, 2018) is by far the best I have read or heard regarding this disastrous presidency. I think he has nailed the whole situation right down to a T.

The only thing I might add is regarding Manafort: if he is jailed because of money laundering, I wonder whose money it was? His entire campaign consisted of buddies he thought he could use and abuseI

Mr. Trump does not deserve the title of president. His whole agenda was to change things that were in his way of adding to his wealth. If it were all on the up and up, he wouldn’t be hiding his tax returns.

If there is one thing I have learned through my lifetime, it is that the greater a person’s guilt is, the greater his need is to cast blame on others. Shakespeare said in Hamlet , “Me thinks thou dost protest too much.”

Solar no match for lost nuclear power

Annette Cary recently reported on Energy Northwest’s plans for a solar energy project in Richland (Oct 26, 2018). Some $6.5 million is earmarked for the 20-acre project.

Twenty acres is 80,960 square meters. The maximum solar input (insolation rate) is 1 kw-hour/m2 or 80,960 kw-hour (81 mw-hour) for the entire 20-acre array, assuming 100 percent conversion to electricity.

The going rate for electricity is 12 cents/kw-hour ($0.12/kw-hour) or $9,715/hour for the project’s entire output. Excluding the initial costs for labor, fabricating the solar arrays and batteries, installation, maintenance and considering the drop-off from peak production during night time and cloudy weather - revenue generated is less than $4,800/hour. (Franklin County rates are $0.067/kw-hour but are masked by a $35 monthly fee to cover administration costs.)

In the past, active duty military ships have been used to provide off-shore power to assist storm recovery efforts. Had the reactor compartments been recovered from the over 100 scrapped subs buried at Hanford, the electricity generated could have been so cheap that we wouldn’t meter it. Instead, we’ve paid $20 million to gut each sub, weld the hull pieces back together and sink them in the ocean.

Defining ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’

I certainly agree with Gregg Lumetta’s comment in his letter of Nov. 14, 2018, that “there is no beauty in any abortion.” However, there does appear to be some confusion in the definition of terms here. While Mr. Lumetta gives the impression that he falls into the “pro-life” camp, he in reality is “pro-choice” because he states that in his opinion, termination can be justified in situations of medical necessity to save the life of the mother. This is his limit of “choice.” Others sometimes add that abortion is okay in the situations of rape or incest. Again, this is their “choice.”

There is no evidence that such babies conceived in these situations are any less worthy of a purported true “pro-life” view and being allowed to be born. But many who claim to be “pro-life” are really “pro-choice,” demanding that all adhere to their limits of “choices” of reasons for termination.