My ltte, submitted for editing and or corrections......this is in response to one

[madmom]

submitted in our local rag http://www.crescent-news.com/news/article/4726876

According to a recent letter to the editor “if a person tells a lie long enough and loud enough all start to believe it”. I believe that is a good place to start..
First and foremost Al Gore did NOT win an Oscar for his part in the film “An Inconvenient Truth”. The picture itself won the Oscar, Al Gore did not, so how could it be “recalled”? I'm curious,did the author even see the film?
Another claim regarding the presentation of the film in English schools, while on it's face may be true, significant other details were left out , here is the judge's actual words..
In his October 10, 2007, ruling, High Court Judge Michael Burton stated that while he had identified nine "errors and omissions" in the film, it is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." The judge also said he had "no doubt" that the defendant's expert was "right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate. The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
The claim about polar bears drowning because of melting ice, well ,yes, polar bears are excellent swimmers, but even the best need a rest sometimes and when there is no ice to climb on to rest, well.... I believe the biggest mistake was using the term “global warming” instead of something identifying with extreme climate change, watch the news, it is happening!
About Al gore's profiting from his investments.... “I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it,” Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Did anyone bemoan the fact that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was one of the biggest stock holders in Gilead Sciences, makers of Tamiflu, when GW Bush called on Congress to immediately pass $7.1 billion in emergency funding to prepare for that not-imminent, not-pandemic, possible-in-the-future danger of Avian flu on Nov 1, 2005. Does anyone remember when the Defense Department made military personnel take their vaccine against the imagined bio weapons Saddam Hussein had? Same company. Did Rumsfeld give any of his profits to the VA since the vaccine had some seriously dangerous effects? No, quite the contrary, they inserted a paragraph into the Homeland Security bill that would give immunity for liability to drug companies.


I have to end it yet, but wanted any corrections or advise so far. Thanks

[Th1onein]

1. Could you post the letter to which you are replying?

I think that your letter could use some cutting down for clarity, but I need to see the other letter, in order to help.

[madmom]

2. It is the first letter at the link I provided, thanks for any help. :)

[gratuitous]

3. Excellent points re Rumsfeld

And there are others, too, like Dick Cheney providing the tie-breaking vote for the Bush tax cuts and putting an estimated $175,000 more per year into his own pockets.

It's probably wisest, though, to stick with one subject, and I'd advise rebutting Mr. Timbrook's love affair with the "lie," which you do a good job on in the first paragraph of your letter. Although, considering the length of the original letter, your local paper might not mind running longer letters. Do a little proofreading and let 'er rip.