Editor:

Last month a news commentator said that people who have lost their jobs to trade deals no longer live with good-paying, lifetime jobs. They now live in an uncertain world where they will have to find several jobs during their lifetimes as not everyone is going to find a high-tech, high-paying job in the “new” economy.

The commentator also mentioned that small business growth is going to increasingly taking up the slack.

I immediately remembered that when I grew up small businesses seemed to be even more numerous and less risky than they are today. I will always remember the day my dad took me shopping for our first color TV. It was a small shop and we had to walk through the repair area to get to the new TVs in back. The owner told us the good and bad about each model. He explained why their prices varied. Why each model has different repairs costs.

One, the Zenith, had more tubes which were cheaper to repair and its layout kept the tubes cool. It was high quality and would be cheaper to repair. Another, the Motorola, had several circuit boards which were cheaper to start with but they were placed over the tubes so they would heat up more and be more expensive to repair.

What I ALSO remember was that the price of each set – there and everywhere else – was the price. No dickering. “Manufacturer’s Retail Price!”  My dad told me that the idea was that this would help assure everyone was paid enough to keep their doors open.

Then, just a few years later, I remember the push to end price fixing at the retail level. Some warned that it might hurt small retailers but others claimed that the extra service they offered and repairs would be enough to keep them going. We were all told the important thing was “freer markets” and “price competition”.

This all seemed to be OK but I was worried about the man in that shop. As a result I noticed when his shop stopped selling new TVs and later I noticed when he stopped repairing things and had to close.

In a similar vein a few years later I remember when businesses and consumers wanted tariffs lowered and prices went lower yet. Indeed, from my vantage point as a consumer I saw the push for cheaper prices play itself with clothes, cars, computers, circuit boards, and recently appliances, just to name a few.

What I am saying is trade deals like NAFTA did not cause our problems but were symptoms of the push for  “freer markets” and “cheaper prices” which were already well underway.

Change seems to be an inherent element of capitalism and its effective allocation of resources; I will let the economists argue those issues.

But what I do know if the only truly free market is the black market. Governments, laws and regulation shape them and set limits on behavior. Therefore, when I hear someone use the term “free market” I always wait to see if the speaker can define the problem or has a plan with detailed expected consequences.

When I hear someone rail against regulation I always wait to see which one, why is was or was not unwise, and how it could have been done better. I know to that everything government does, every trend in business, every advance in science, has both intended and unintended consequences so we need to be flexible and vigilant to make changes.

I will always wonder what would have helped my TV shop owner, my suit salesman, and my appliance guy, and my neighbor who worked at Harrison. They were this country’s backbone.

They all seemed to have been swallowed up by free markets and cheap costs. For some of them I am sure no thought was given about how to soften the blow while the rest of us benefitted.

And now we are back where we started with small business expected to take up the slack. We need to know if whoever is talking has a grip or reality or is selling us a bill of goods.  Therefore I actually look to see which plan starts out being most detailed, which has the best costing, which is the most flexible, and which makes the fewest  assumptions about how good it will be.

All of “my guys” deserved it then and we need it now.

Very truly yours,

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

To residents of Orleans County, please respect everyone’s right to post political signs regardless of affiliation.

In less than one week this election will be over.  Be kind to one another.

Jeanne Crane

Orleans County Democratic Party chairwoman

Editor:

Many thanks to the Orleans Hub for kindly publishing my letter about my unresponsive Congressman. It is only fair that I provide this follow-up.

Shortly after my letter appeared, I received an e-mail communication from my Congressman. “Ah, the power of the press! He must have seen my letter in the Hub,” I thought. “Finally, he’s responding!”

But a quick review of the letter indicates that my Congressman did not actually read my original message because his response has little to do with what I wrote to him about. In fact, his letter seems to be praising me for agreeing with him, which is a 180-degree spin on my original letter. And, once again, he did not answer my question. Unresponsive, even on those rare occasions when he responds.

I will carry this experience with me when I cast my ballot on November 8th.

Rev. James Renfrew

Clarendon

Editor:

Detailed review of the Heritage Wind LLC Public Information Plan (PIP) as submitted to the New York State Department of Public Service by APEX Clean Energy has proven quite interesting in a very troubling way.  The PIP can be found by clicking here.

Apex Clean Energy has proposed Heritage Wind, a 200.1 Mega Watt Industrial Wind Project, for the Town of Barre. On Sept. 23, 2016, Apex submitted its PIP, which included a very interesting and troubling set of maps.

These maps show not only the ground zero project area, but also the proposed study area. The study area is a buffer zone of 5 miles around ground zero in all directions.  While the ground zero project area is within the Town of Barre, the buffer zone study area includes the following Towns and Villages:

• Towns of: Barre, Albion, Elba, Oakfield, Byron, Bergen, Basom, Alabama, Shelby, Ridgeway, Gaines, Murray and Clarendon
• Villages of: Albion, Elba, Oakfield, Medina, Holley, Fancher, Eagle Harbor, Knowlesville

Additionally, this project is in close and adjacent proximity to:

• Town of Yates (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue)
• Village of Lyndonville (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue)
• Town of Waterport
• Town of Kent
• Town of Kendall

By comparison, Apex’s Lighthouse Wind Proposal includes the following Towns and Villages as a part of the original project and/or study area:

• Town of Somerset (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – ORIGINAL PROJECT / STUDY AREA
• Village of Barker (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – ORIGINAL PROJECT / STUDY AREA
• Town of Yates (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – ORIGINAL PROJECT / STUDY AREA
• Village of Lyndonville(3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – ORIGINAL PROJECT / STUDY AREA
• Village of Olcott (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – STUDY AREA
• Town of Newfane (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – STUDY AREA
• Town of Hartland (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – STUDY AREA
• Town of Ridgeway (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – STUDY AREA
• Town of Carlton (3 years into the Lighthouse Wind Issue) – STUDY AREA

It is noted here that both Lighthouse and Heritage Wind PIP’s include language which indicates the study area potentially becoming part of the project area.  Yates and Somerset have leaseholders with signed leases within the study area and beyond the ground zero project area. Additionally, the buildable areas for these two projects may very well involve land in six of Orleans County’s nine towns.

So, in one fell swoop, Apex has succeeded in pulling almost all of Orleans County into the Wind Turbine War via submission of these two project proposals.

For those who are potentially impacted and are hearing of the Heritage Wind Industrial Wind Turbine Project for the first time, you will hear and read many positions, on wildlife, environment, human health, quality of life, property value decline and promised tax reductions as the project moves forward.  These positions will come from those representing both sides of this issue.  When everyone has stated their positions, you will need to ask yourself one question:

“Am I willing to accept the potential risks to:  wildlife, environment, my family’s health, quality of life and property values if this project is built”?

It is important to remember that turbines, once built, will not go away.  They will not be torn down if you are negatively impacted by this proposed project.

This letter is not written to scare or upset.  It is written to warn, inform and urge everyone in Orleans County to get educated and conversant on this project now. Much is at stake. Please heed the warning.

John Riggi                                                             James Simon

Councilman, Town of Yates                              Supervisor, Town of Yates

Editor:

In at least two speeches last summer, Donald Trump advised supporters to be “vigilant” this November, and there is certainly nothing wrong with vigilance.

In Altoona, Pa., Aug. 12, and again in Akron, Ohio on Aug. 22, the Republican nominee told large crowds of adoring followers, “You know what I am talking about. You need to go out and watch. We need the cops, off-duty law enforcement, the sheriffs, to go out and watch. You need to vote on the eighth, but then you need to go and watch and make sure people aren’t bussed in and vote five times. Because I know what is going on here, and we cannot lose unless they steal it from us.”

By himself he may not be able to bully those who support Clinton and/or disapprove of his candidacy into staying home on Nov. 8.

With the help of scowling supporters – some of whom have been seriously agitated by his angry rhetoric – hanging around polling places after voting, he may be able to depress turnout by intimidating would-be voters.

As he has said, “Hey, why don’t we just cancel the election and give it to Trump, right?”

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

Every one tends to think in terms of Supreme Court Justices as politically “liberal” or “conservative”. The notion is often that those labels determine how a Judge will rule on particular issues.

The truth is that so called “conservative” judges sometimes vote for so called “liberal” results and vice versa. Half of all cases are actually unanimous and split decisions do not follow a pattern.

Justice Scalia, for example, often voted against law enforcement and for defendants. (Google that if you have any doubt!) Many times they agree but for different reasons.

Since it is unethical for a Judge to say how they would rule on any particular issue the President and Senate look closely at their philosophy and hope it is a guide to what sort of decisions the nominee will make.

There are three major schools of judicial philosophy. None of them are perfect and judges frequently mix and match. Any one of them strictly applied can lead to ridiculous conclusions.

Judge Bork, a strict constructionist in the Scalia vein, wrote about this need to mix and match and also testified to the Senate about that when he was being considered for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Judicial philosophy is important because we are not a “civil law” country and do rig our judiciary. In civil law countries have comprehensive codes that regulate virtually everything in detail. As a rule of thumb in most of them when something is not specifically permitted the presumption is against the conduct.

Civil law courts hold if the code applies, but their decisions do not bind future courts.   On the other hand under the “common law” countries, the common law by design is not static.

Courts consider principles of law, reasoning, and new combinations of fact(s) and law(s) all the time. The presumption is that conduct is probably permitted unless it is criminal, clearly regulated for a good and valid reason, or against “public policy” –  for example, it may be against public policy to light a match in a crowded place.

Each decision binds future courts if the facts and law are the same. The bias in favor of peoples’ rights and the creep that is built into binding Judicial decisions as lubricant and stops Legislative overreaching.

An independent judiciary helps keep the system stable. Civil law countries have a harder time dealing with change – just look at France and all the various Republics it has had; England, the home of common law, dates back to 1215. (I do not mention systems in which the results are rigged; that’s typical in Banana Republics and Dictatorships which are inherently unstable.)

Justice Scalia tended, philosophically, to rely on “Textualizm.” He looked at the words and then tried to figure out what was, or would have been, in the writers’ minds at the time laws were written. This is an off shoot of the British School of “Legal Positivism” which is fairly recent – H.L. A. Hart “Concept of Law” 1948.

The shortcoming of this tool is that knowing what a person 200 years ago would feel about a problem they had never considered involves a lot of guess work and a Judge’s personal values. Another criticism is that is tends to push decisions with Constitutional dimensions onto the Legislatures which are supposed to be limited to passing statues.

The traditional American approach is called “Moral Reading”. Justice Kennedy, the swing Justice nowadays, looks at the words, looks at contemporaneous statements of what the writers intended, and when in doubt or confronted by answers that do not add up considers the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration holds that every person has “inalienable rights” which transcend both the whims of government and the laws of man. These rights specifically include “liberty”, “equality” and “human dignity”. The theory is that we cannot ignore the rights we fought a revolution to secure. The criticism is that guess work and individual values are still involved.

The so-called Liberal Judges tend rely on another American School of thought called “Legal Realism”. The theory is that guess work and a judges personal views minimized if a Judge expressly considers what an ordinary person living in today’s world would think about the issue.

This school of thought considers “good faith”, “honesty”, “reasonableness”, “need” , “fairness to all”, “protection of fundamental rights”, negative effects on the country as a whole”,  and “workable results”.

Legal Realism is the theoretical framework for the laws which regulates commercial transactions in the United States; in that context it works extremely well. In fact these considerations sneak into practically every decision to one extent or the other but with liberal more regularly. The criticism is that Judicial creep tends to be less gradual. The retort is that if a person figures out a way to circumvent the intent of the law, the cheating is easier to catch and fix. Another criticism is that the decisions can jump forward rather than creep.

I hope this very limited review helps explain what the President is looking for and why, historically, people get surprised by the eventual results. The question is not whether or not there will be change, but rather if, how, and how far the Courts will go in any particular case.

Very truly yours,

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

I have a problem. My Congressman is unresponsive. He appears to eagerly solicit my views on his web page. He even offers on his website a box for me to check if I would like a response from him. He has an elaborate log-in on his website to filter out non-constituents, so I provide my zip code to prove that I live in his district. But my Congressman is unresponsive. Month, after month, after month … nothing.

When I write to my Congressman I express my opinions, but I always conclude with a question for which I would like an answer. I can only conclude that my questions are not important in the lofty halls of the US Congress.

Two years ago I wrote my Congressman a letter and many months later he answered with a form letter that did not address the question I asked. The last time I received a response from him, a year ago it was the exact same form letter that I had received the previous year. Again, he did not answer my question.

The world constantly changes; war, injustice, climate change, politics, and the economy, but my Congressman’s form letter remains the same. My Congressman is unresponsive even on those rare occasions when he responds!

To be sure, I have written my Congressman many times, so it’s possible that he won’t get to every question I have asked. But the truth is that when I receive no response I feel an urgency to write even more messages to him, hoping that one of them will finally get his attention. But not one, not once in the last six months. My Congressman is unresponsive.

I have watched in vain for announcements about meetings with constituents in my town. Nothing. There was a candidates’ forum in Geneseo last month. He was a no-show.

I have many opinions that the Congressman probably disagrees with. I can deal with that. It would be a rare day that my elected representatives (of any party!) agree with all of my opinions, but most of them have had the decency to respond when I ask a question. My Congressman is unresponsive.

Accountability to constituents is cornerstone of our democracy. Our unresponsive Congressman has demonstrated that he needs to be replaced. At this point I have no use for him at all, so I am happy to reveal what I will do in the voting booth on Nov. 8.  I will be voting for Diana Kastenbaum of Batavia to be our representative in the US Congress for the 27th Congressional District of New York.

And, Ms. Kastenbaum, just to warn you, I am planning to write you a few letters after your election, and I am counting on you to be responsive!

Rev. James Renfrew

Clarendon

Editor:

I write because the fine people who staff our election office and man our polling places have been put into the cross hairs of this nasty election.

The United States of America is the finest democracy in the world and our elections set the standard by which all others are judged. Anyone who says otherwise has been dragged into the gutter by people who thrive on hysteria – the ever lurking and insidious enemy of democracy.

Take a smidgen here, a smidgen there, mix in some fairy dust and, don’t you know, your proved that the world is flat. It may be reality TV but it’s not what the United States of America and our elections are about. The fact is that world is not flat and Democrats and Republican alike are in every precinct across the county working diligently to ensure that our election is honest and the tally accurate.

There are enough dangers in this world that we can not waste time on made-up ones. When confronted with wild eyed hysteria (Oh, my the roof is falling) we must be clear eyed and stout. We must reject unproven accusations that only serve to advance political passions whenever and wherever they appear.

Anyone who tries to harass or intimidate any election official, poll worker, or voter should be arrested and, after conviction, stripped of their rights as citizens. The people entrusted with our election are “your”, “my”, “our” friends and neighbors. They serve our democracy well and deserve no less.

Very truly yours,

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

The table below shows the results of an analysis of public comments made to the New York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS) website in relation to the Lighthouse Wind Project as proposed for the Towns of Yates and Somerset by APEX Energy. A total of 855 comments submitted were assessed by quarter with comments tabulated and organized by support (in-favor) and opposition (opposed) to the project.

All comments made to the NYSDPS site regarding the Lighthouse Wind Project were included in the assessment and as stated, cover the time period from Q1-2015 through Q3-2016.  All comments were read fully in order to ascertain position regarding the wind project.  The positions were tabulated as in-favor or opposed to the project.

The results are as follows:

The overall results for this time period are as follows

Comments In-Favor of Lighthouse Wind Project = 148

Comments Opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 707

% of Comments In-Favor of Lighthouse Wind Project = 17%

% of Comments Opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 83%

These results show a clear, ongoing and massive opposition to this project.  Interestingly, these results show a greater level of opposition than have all of the previous surveys performed by:

The Town of Somerset

Save Ontario Shores (SOS)

The Town of Yates

The Buffalo News

The Batavia Daily News

Buffalo Business First Magazine

These surveys averaged an approximately 70% Opposed/30% In-Favor breakdown of survey results.

As a private citizen, it is clear to me that DPS comments and multiple surveys show the truth.  The will of the people is clear.  APEX’s Lighthouse Wind Project must not move forward.  In addition and just as importantly, Article 10 must not be allowed to suppress the Home-Rule will of the people.

Thank you.

John B. Riggi

Councilman, Town of Yates

Editor:

No one selects a community to settle in that has towering wind turbines surrounding it. Proponents of Lighthouse Wind see this as a cure-all for all the economic woes, as some all-embracing savior that somehow transforms Lyndonville to Williamsville.

Lyndonville will be literally surrounded by 650-foot (or higher, as Apex’s Dan Fitzgerald had mentioned this summer) wind turbines.  We have flat terrain here, so there won’t be any hills to hide these.  What is desirable about that?

Don’t you read about the 20 percent of people who have many detrimental health effects from these? Do you feel that you, your family, and friends will not be among that one in five persons who will experience at least one of these?

Are you so willing to gamble that you plug your ears to all the negatives of industrial wind turbines that you will sacrifice the peace and beauty of your town for money?

The rest of us who do not want industrial wind turbines here have read about the Ontario’s stopping all future wind turbine construction. We have read about the World Health Organization’s new health guidelines regarding harmful infrasound.

As a result of the increasing height of new turbines, setbacks are now advised in miles rather than feet. Why would you keep advocating to bring these on and, worse, to malign the group—your own neighbors—who want you to see the problems these things cause?

You cannot plug your ears and keep hoping for the piles of money that are promised by Apex, whose job it is to get these projects started, leaving residents to cope with the permanent destruction that is incentivized by federal tax credits.

You have allowed Apex “folks” (salesmen) to be your personal advisors. Of course their job is to get you to ignore all the realities and to allow Apex to build here. Wake up and see what the rest of the world is now experiencing about industrial wind turbines.

Christine Bronson

Barker

Editor:

A concern is now being clearly voiced by Town of Yates residents regarding the potential negative impact of the Lighthouse Wind Industrial Wind Turbine project on economic development in the Town, should this project be approved.

Clearly, Yates is in need of continued and ongoing economic development and it will come from taking advantage of appropriate economic development opportunities as they arise. However, in order to take advantage of these opportunities, Yates needs to be ready to market itself to those that might choose Yates as a place to reside or locate businesses.  The more residents and businesses we can attract to Yates, the healthier the Town is now and into the future.

More residents moving to Yates means a full school enrollment and the need for businesses to service those residents. This is all possible via appropriate economic development. The key phrase here, however, is “appropriate economic development.”

The risks to town growth come from many directions and are very real.  Not the least of which is anything that could upset the delicate balance between agricultural and residential areas, as well as the environment, wildlife and human quality of life.  An economic opportunity that would endanger that balance is simply the wrong economic opportunity.

When considering a Wind Turbine Project as a potential economic opportunity, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of those considering relocating family or business to Yates and ask, “Would I want to live north of Ridge Road and in the Town of Yates, amongst those turbines?

I believe the answer for most potential residents or business owners might be a resounding NO.  The looming view of a wind turbine project as they crest Ridge Road driving north may give them pause.  Whether or not they were for or against wind turbines, they might not choose to buy property or locate their family and/or business in and amongst the Yates turbine field.

Given this scenario, there is a probability that a Wind Turbine Project in the Town of Yates could effectively backstop any significant economic development at Ridge Road. Result: The Town of Yates receives no economic benefit from projects such as Pride Pak in Medina, the STAMP Project in Alabama or others to follow. People won’t move to town, the schools won’t fill up and businesses would see no benefit in initial or increased investment in the Town of Yates.

Economic development would remain unattainable in the Town of Yates and that would be a travesty.

Thank you,

John B. Riggi

Councilman, Town of Yates

Editor:

For those who are unaware, the Iroquois Wildlife Refuge in the Town of Shelby, Orleans County, is in danger. Frontier Stone is proposing to put a stone quarry on farmland at the northern border of the refuge.

The DEC, surprisingly, finds no problem in putting a quarry right next to this valuable wetland area. The Town of Shelby is currently attempting to protect the refuge from industrial encroachment and is trying to preserve the natural environment of the refuge for the creatures that live in this habitat as well as preserve and protect it for the thousands of people who visit each year from near and far to enjoy its natural beauty.

This will affect hunters, fishermen, bird watchers, educational facilities and others, and may set a precedent for parks, refuges, and wetlands in other areas of the country.

Our wildlife refuge and animal habitats must be preserved for future generations and we need to ensure that our stewardship of the earth is undertaken responsibility so that more species of wildlife do not become extinct.

If this concerns you, please write a letter of support to the Shelby Town Board (4062 Saltworks Rd. Medina, NY 14103) and to your elected representative in your area.

Sincerely,

Richard and Melissa Maurer

Town of Shelby

Editor:

I am shocked regarding the Wiki-leaks dump and the reaction of the mainstream media, the Democratic Party’s response to it, and the hypocrisy of not only the “liberal left”, but of the people who still, unbelievably, support Hillary Clinton.

It was recently revealed that not only did the Clinton campaign collude with the media on debate questions and slanting of coverage by The NY Times, MSNBC, Univision, and ABC “journalists” as well as other supposed “trusted” media outlets, but the Justice Department, the DNC Chair and even the Obama Administration itself.

And yet, readers of this Hub as well as zombies addicted to the MSM (Mainstream Media) still believe that Donald Trump is a “threat” because of lewd comments from years ago, despite the obvious desensitization of our country regarding basic principles such as morals, decency and religious liberty.  Do any of you hear yourselves?

Clinton and her campaign detest religious freedom. Her entire reign as “Princess” of the Democratic Party has been revealed in such a way that the book, “The Emperor has no clothes on”, does not give the phrase the justice it sought to warn us against.

I am disgusted.  And the fact that regular people, my own neighbors even, still support this corrupt system scares me to death.

News flash to anyone who relies on NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN:  They are in the tank trying to keep her on the offence of the Trump campaign.

You are not aware of social media and the outcry of the rest of us citizens who are appalled by what it really going on here. Want to know what that is? Check out Fox News, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.  There, you will find an army of people who are also scared to death that Clinton may become our worst president ever, corrupt to the core, owned by every country and for sale to anyone who wants a favor.

She favors globalism. George Soros is financing a huge part of her campaign. And the globalist agenda extends all the way to the Vatican, which has been infested by anti-life, “climate” experts and anti-religion heretics hell-bent on destroying not only our country, but religion and the world itself. Because control is all they want.

Indeed, distract everyone by “climate change” and BLM, to “anti-women” and anti-choice policies, and the least informed will simply pull the Democrat lever at the polls.

Hey church goers: elect Clinton and your choice to go to church will be considered a “hate crime”.

How about abortion at 8 1/2 months of gestation? All fine by Clinton, and in fact, pull out the babies even if they are still viable.

Climate change a problem? Get ready to pay quadruple for gas and servicing for the car in your driveway.

If Clinton, God help us, is elected, the country we know will be in the hands of the UN. They hate religion, the struggling middle class, and of course, CHOICE of how you want to live in peace.

They are all about CONTROL. And I cannot believe that my own county is falling for it.

Kim Kennedy

Medina

Editor:

Many of us complain about “the do nothing politicians” and “the over-paid Congressmen.”

Well, we have right here in the 27th Congressional District such a politician. Chris Collins was the first to endorse that embarrassment Donald Trump. Over the past several years I have personally written to Mr. Collins on a range of issues such as Social Security, habitat protection, prescription costs, minimum wage, closing tax loopholes for millionaires, gun safety, and clean energy.

Each and every time Mr. Collins came out in favor of privatizing Social Security, allowing big oil to drill in sensitive wildlife habitat, placing faith in big drug companies to keep costs down through competition (how is that working for you?), and against a fair living wage for full time workers.

He favors tax breaks for the rich, no incentives for clean energy and supports unlimited access to any type of gun by anyone at any time. Chris Collins is a man who wants us to vote against our self interests.

No thank you, Mr. Collins. We are not buying your rhetoric any longer. Your voting record and conduct show you could care less about the workers and taxpayers of this country.

Chris Collins favors the closing of clinics that benefit low-income women. These clinics provide mammograms, pregnancy and HIV testing as well as birth control. And make no mistake; being Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means such decisions should be left between a woman and her doctor. Thanks to our Constitution, no one has the right to push their religious beliefs on to others. Let me restate it: A woman’s right to choose is a protected Constitutional Freedom.

Diana Kastenbaum, business owner from Batavia, is mounting an effective campaign against Chris Collins and his conservative cronies in Washington. She understands the struggles of senior citizens, working families, small businesses, single parents and the middle class.

Diana knows that clean, renewable energy creates jobs, lessens our dependence on dirty fuel, addresses climate change and protects our planet. Diana knows closing tax loopholes like the ones that enabled the likes of Donald Trump to pay no taxes for decades will help our disabled veterans, low income working families, family farmers, keep our military strong, promote good roads, safe food, safe travel and health care.

Diana is Pro-Choice. Do your homework, compare these candidates. Remember, not all Republican or conservative candidates deserve election. Some are actually down-right deplorable.

On Nov. 8, we have an opportunity to kick Chris Collins to the curb. Join me in doing precisely that.

Al Capurso

Gaines

Editor:

This letter is to address Save Ontario Shores’ claims that wind turbines coming to Yates and Somerset will have a “devastating impact” on the local bird population. Although I have asked numerous times for the information on exactly what birds from our area will be “devastated,” I can get no answer from them. They just keep repeating the same old answers.

These are facts that need to be made public to counteract the vague “devastation” claims made by this group. Although, these still do not answer many questions about the turbine/bird issue raised by their group (such as which specific birds they are claiming this about), it does put into perspective the biased claims that turbines are the worst thing in the world for birds.

Cell and radio towers kill 6.8 million birds a year. I suggest SOS members give up their communication instruments and save those birds and leave the turbines to counteract the pollution caused by fossil fuels that kill, according to the US News and World Report, in numbers that follow: (Each has a low and a high estimate, except coal and nuclear.)

• Wind Turbines: Low, 140,000 to high, 328.000;

• Oil/Gas: Low, 500,000 to high, 1,000,000;

• Nuclear: 330,000;

• Coal: 7,900,000.

The high estimate for Wind Energy is less than the one for the article that was posted (in the article the numbers were 20,000 to 573,000) but I am sure that SOS members are as horrified as I am by the numbers of birds killed by other forms of energy. I am sure they will cease and desist what in my opinion is a witch hunt against the wind industry and focus their energies against the fossil fuel companies and the cell and radio industries. That is if the birds are the real reason for this travesty you call SOS.

Susan Campbell

Lyndonville