Peter W. Johnson, Superior
During the administration of President Barack Obama, the national debt grew by several trillion dollars, thanks to President George W. Bush's $1.6 trillion in tax cuts and huge federal spending. President Bush's actions sparked a financial collapse in 2007 that resulted from an unregulated financial system gamed by company executives who placed investors' money into risky, Ponzi-like schemes and then bet they would collapse.
The "rights" of organizations (notably religious ones) to not cover contraceptives impressed many as a legal slam dunk ("Obama-era birth control mandate rolled back," Oct. 7). But was it?
A July 19 letter asked readers to basically disregard the proof that ExxonMobil knew about the deleterious effects of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide (Reader's View: "Where's evidence of climate-denial conspiracy?"). The letter postulated that climate scientists and organizations like Greenpeace created a myth to protect their "inflow of donations." For what? To create a false narrative that makes none of them rich?
After decades of discussing and rebutting one faux or previously explained issue after another, those of us who try to spread important facts about the seriousness of global warming still find that what we say is constantly lied about, used to misinform, or inadequately explained, including in letters to the editor in newspapers like the News Tribune, which doesn't allow more than 300 words for letters.
The April 16 letter, "Public swayed by alternative facts on climate," doubled down on the notion of "alternative facts" by insinuating that the majority of climate scientists misrepresent facts (despite volumes of conclusive scientific evidence) that prove carbon dioxide traps heat and has been increasing in concentrations over the last 150 years in correlation with man's increasing use of fossil fuels.
Most deniers of human-caused global warming waste no time in using former Vice President Al Gore as their whipping boy any time something he said is even remotely considered in error.
To his credit, the writer of the "con" view on the Jan. 13 News Tribune Opinion page got it right about actress Meryl Streep's talented and esteemed career. And he was quick to defend her 1st Amendment rights (Pro/Con: "Did Meryl Streep nail it on Trump? No way: Her rant was hateful and ignorant"). Yet the rest of his comments about Streep's speech at the Golden Globes ceremony represented a scathing diatribe against her and Hollywood, typical of someone who honors the 1st Amendment's legal authority yet has little regard for its spirit.