Editor:

I normally keep my opinions to myself, especially about politics, but the recent decision by the Orleans County Republican Party to endorse Donald Trump for President has forced me to break my silence.

Donald Trump has proven himself to be a xenophobic, bigoted, racist who would be a disaster for the country if elected. The things he has said about women should be enough by themselves to convince people. I have not heard of a single world leader saying anything favorable about him except Putin. That’s enough for me.

I fail to see how our local party leaders think Trump would be good for us. He wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out. Tell me who will pick our apples and harvest the vegetable crops that our county depends on.

If you criticize or disagree with Trump he calls you names and insults you. Not very presidential.

The man seems incapable of speaking in complete sentences.

We can do better.

I have been a registered Republican for over 40 years. It’s not the party it once was. The only reason I haven’t switched parties yet is so that I can vote against Trump in the primary.

Ronald Mathes
Albion

Editor:

I have been a lifelong registered Republican, having voted for every party candidate for presidential election since Gerald Ford’s failed 1976 bid.

I have always considered myself a moderate Republican; conservative on fiscal issues and moderate on social ones. Over the last several years, I have seen my party change to the point that I no longer wish to be considered a Republican.

The final straw was the announcement that our local Republican Party has endorsed Donald Trump as President. To me, Trump is at best a blowhard, and at worst a dangerous person who could possibly lead our country down a dangerous road.

Any student of history can see similarities between the fervor that surrounds Trump, and the rise of other dangerous individuals that have attracted a disaffected portion of the electorate and have advanced themselves because there is not respected voice speaking out against them.

Trump not a Republican or a Democrat. He is an opportunistic buffoon who will say or do whatever will rile the crowds. I have decided to leave the Republican Party and have re-registered as an independent.

Thomas Minigiello
Kendall

Editor:

I would like to thank the Somerset Town Board for the update in the town law with regard to wind turbines; a lot has changed in the past 10 years with regard to this industry.

Certainly the size and technology has changed; in addition, as more of these have been built near people, negative effects have been reported world-wide. In fact, many communities are banning them from being built. Unfortunately Article 10 has stripped that right from us in NYS so the board trying to protect the community as much as possible is greatly appreciated.

I understand why leaseholders and Apex are opposed to this; they are in it for the money without regard for the community and neighbors. What I can’t understand are others who support this project or don’t appreciate the town law trying to protect us from some of the harmful consequences.

To think that it will help our towns and make it so our children can stay here is delusional. Visit the towns that have had these built near them; they are not bustling with economic trade! In fact, many report people leaving, some even abandoning their properties because of health concerns. Do you really think these effects and concerns are made up? That there is a mass conspiracy world-wide to discredit wind turbines?

People with no financial gain are speaking up; do you really believe what the companies, who stand to make millions, say over residents who have lived with the effects of these industrial wind turbines? The World Health Organization, among countless others, has recognized the negative health effects when turbines are sited too close to people. Frankly, from what I’ve read, even 2,000 feet is not far enough away; there are reports of negative effects as far as two miles away from industrial turbines.

As proven with the recent elections and multiple surveys, the great majority of residents oppose this project for the following reasons:

1. The energy benefits are minimal. Wind turbines in NYS work less than 24% of the time. Even when generating power, the output is variable, so it cannot reliably replace other sources on the grid and only causes peak load plants to ramp down or switch from generation to standby, in which mode they still burn fuel.

In addition, as reported in Forbes this past October U.S. Energy Administration data shows that electricity rates have soared in states generating the most wind power. That is not a coincidence. Speaking as an environmentalist, this inefficient source of power doesn’t make the grade; its disadvantages far outweigh its advantages, especially when sited inappropriately.

2. The addition of noise, light, and visual pollution is unacceptable. We are talking about approximately 70 structures 60 stories high! I am tired of hearing from leaseholders that they should be able to do what they want with their land. I can’t put a small one story shed within 15 feet of the property line with my neighbor but they should be able to put a 570 foot industrial structure across the road from me? What is right or fair about that?

These turbines must be lit and will be noisy, not to mention creating flicker and infrasound; even Apex acknowledges some of the negative consequences, although they try to minimize them by calling them “annoyances”. We also have to worry about radar and telecommunications interference; there’s a reason that Invenergy has to pay the cable bills in Orangeville.

3. The negative impact to the land and to wildlife is significant. Besides acres of clearance and blasting of foundations for thousands of tons of rebar and concrete, new or upgraded roads and high-capacity transmission lines are also required. Construction will affect water flow and quality and cause erosion and flooding, as has been documented in Meyersdale, Pennsylvania. Besides reducing and fragmenting forest habitat, the vibration of the machines drives away wildlife, as noted on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia. Turbine blades are deadly to bats and birds and our location as a major North American migratory path makes this especially troubling.

4. The harm to our rural character far outweighs unreliable pay-offs to affected towns and individuals. As noted in numerous sources, as a project is later sold to national or international investors, payments are likely to be curtailed and taxes contested. The potential legal burden on towns is huge. Construction jobs, the more specialized of which will be filled by workers from elsewhere, are short term.

Approximately 10 permanent jobs are promised, but at what cost? Any business that depends on recreation and tourism traffic is likely to suffer, as will neighboring property values. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management’s Wind Energy Development Policy “will not grant right-of way authorizations for wind energy development for areas incompatible with specific resource valuesincluding National and Scenic Trails.” Why is this project proposed here, with the Great Lakes Seaway Trail, Golden Hills State Park and the Niagara Wine Trail?

Long after new technology makes giant wind turbines obsolete, or after they are abandoned because of diminishing returns (just visit Altamont Pass, Calif., Princeton, Mass., and South Point, Hawaii), property owners and towns will be stuck with the mess. Frankly, if it weren’t for taxpayer-funded subsidies, these would never be built. We, as local taxpayers, would truly pay twice for this project, not to mention the loss of our quality of life.

Respectfully,

Donn Riggi
Lyndonville

Editor:

Save Ontario Shores, a citizens group formed in response to 600-foot-high industrial wind turbines proposed for the towns of Somerset and Yates, calls upon Apex Clean Energy, Inc. to immediately sign and return to the New York State Office of the Attorney General the Code of Conduct for Wind Farm Development that it received from the Attorney General’s Office on or shortly after Feb. 8, 2016. As of Feb. 18 the Attorney General’s Office had not received the signed code.

There is a Somerset Town Planning Board meeting on March 3 regarding additional MET towers for the Apex’s proposed industrial wind turbine project. This is an excellent example of the type of local decision-making that the code of conduct was meant to protect from any appearance of conflict of interest.

We call upon Apex to sign the code of conduct and comply with it before going before the Somerset Town Planning Board or any municipal body for any Lighthouse Wind project approvals.

Apex Clean Energy, Inc. states on its current website (click here) that “Apex will continue working with the Attorney General’s office as we develop Lighthouse Wind, and we look forward to signing a code of conduct when it is offered by the Attorney General.”

The Attorney General has sent Apex a code of conduct with signature lines and the local community expects that the document be signed immediately, returned to the Attorney General’s Office and expects immediate compliance.

Apex’s delay in signing and complying with the code of conduct adds to the ongoing experiences of citizens who have had questions addressed by Apex with “you’ll find out later” type of language.

People want disclosure. Let us know your plans. Let us know the number and locations and types of turbines you are considering. Stop telling us that you will tell us later. Sign the code of conduct. Comply with it.

Kate Kremer, Vice President
Save Ontario Shores, Inc.

Editor:

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Experience is a great teacher. A better alternative has not been found.

Making mistakes comes with making the attempt. Those who never try fail only because they fail to try.

Someone who has been a governor’s spouse, First Lady of the United States for eight years, a United States Senator and Secretary of State has learned from a variety of relevant experiences. Working with others is in her comfort zone.

The people Hillary Clinton served with as a hard-working United States Senator approved her nomination as Secretary of State by a vote of 96-2. The man she fought for the democratic nomination for President in 2008 nominated her.

Her husband’s transgressions are not hers. She is often faulted for standing with him. I firmly believe she would be faulted had she not stood with him. Regardless of what she does, it is interpreted as “political.” To understand such things, it is important to remember that Bill Clinton committed the unpardonable sin of winning the Presidential election in 1992. She is guilty by association.

The fact that Hillary Clinton is treated “differently” is inescapable.

Consider that what might be called a “system failure” cost the lives of 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001. Another “system failure” cost the lives of 5,000 Americans, and counting, in 2003. The foreign policy inexperience of George W. Bush certainly contributed mightily to these deaths.

Call it what you will, a failure to adhere to the advice of every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff cost the lives of 264 United States Marines in 1983. A decided lack of familiarity with the Middle East certainly contributed to that avoidable tragedy. As I recall, there were virtually no official questions asked about these events, much less millions being spent on Congressional inquiries and hearings.

Rationalize the double standard as you will, a Secretary of State has been investigated and pummeled unmercifully for what arguably may have been nothing more than a system failure that cost the lives of 4 Americans while she was Secretary of State. Republicans in a position to know have admitted her treatmentthen and earlierwas meant to destroy her chances of ever becoming President.

I do not support Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I support her because she is, more than any other person running, the candidate most ready to be President on Day 1. Unlike nearly all of her potential opponents in November, it won’t be necessary for her to be brought “up to speed” on foreign affairs in particular.

Even in a year when all the conventional wisdom is being questioned, there is still no substitute for experience.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent
Albion

Editor:

Our community has been deluged by Apex “Clean Energy” with claims as to the positive environmental effects of Lighthouse Wind, ignoring and/or minimizing other aspects of the project that make it unacceptable to the majority residents in the towns of Somerset and Yates and the surrounding area.

As an example, nothing is mentioned about the huge carbon footprint of this project. Carbon footprint being a measure, developed by the environmental community, of the environmental impact of an operation in tons of carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse gas” released to the atmosphere.

The construction phase alone will be nothing more than an environmental and physical disaster to our area, no matter the measurement.

Consider, the 70 huge foundation pits to be dug and filled with tons of concrete and rebar necessary to support these 600-foot monsters.

Consider, the miles of access roads to be constructed for oversize and overweight equipment necessary to assemble and service 70 of the 600-foot monsters scattered along a 12-mile stretch of Lake Ontario shoreline.

Consider, the miles of trenches to be dug and the cabling required to connect 70 of the 600-foot monsters to each other and to the grid at Somerset Station.

Consider, the fabrication and transportation of 210 composite blades weighing many tons each and 150 feet or more in length necessary to “harvest the wind.”

Consider, the tons of steel in the towers required for each of the 600-foot monsters.

Consider, the thousands of gallons of diesel fuel consumed by the equipment necessary to deliver and assemble all of the above.

There is more to consider, much of it yet to be disclosed by Apex “Clean Energy” as they attempt to convince the public, without full disclosure, of all the benefits of Lighthouse Wind. The carbon footprint of Lighthouse Wind is none the less HUGE. Much research confirms this fact.

The counter argument from those who “Fear Not The Wind” is the fuel is “free” and produces no “greenhouse gas” emissions. To support this argument one has to ignore the huge carbon footprint of construction and ignore the collateral damage associated with the operation of the 70 turbines.

Collateral damage of the 70 operating turbines includes but is not limited to, visual pollution, noise, vibration, shadow flicker, ultrasound, killing of birds and bats, loss of forestland and wildlife habitat, destruction of property values, disruption of normal farming operations, controversy among neighbors, groundwater pollution, electromagnetic interference with communications and threats to public health and safety. For those intent on saving the planet there are better ways.

The Apex “Clean Energy” Lighthouse Wind project power is neither clean, necessary, nor desirable in our community. Three independent studies conducted in the towns of Somerset and Yates and the surrounding area have shown that our community opposes Lighthouse Wind by an overwhelming majority of 2:1. Lighthouse Wind should be canceled. It is the wrong project in the wrong place.

James C. Hoffman
Town of Somerset

Editor:

As a former resident of Terry’s Corners, I was pleased to see recognition of Les Washbon in the Retired category at the Crusaders Motorcycle Club awards banquet!

He was lost to us suddenly in this past year. His accomplishments as a racer were many! Thank you for the local recognition Crusaders!

Dayton Hausman

Medina

Editor:

Having read the article in the “Letters to the Editor” section of the Orleans Hub by Mr. Sidonio pertaining to the exorbitant tax “rate” increases (second straight year) in the Town of Murray and the article in the Batavia News pertaining to the Town of Murray Town Board meeting held on Feb. 9, 2016, I have to expand on the issues.

So, what could be the reason or reasons for these tax “rate” increases which in total amounts to a 15.5 percent increase in the last two yours? Is it a poor bookkeeping system? Is it a lack of the Town Board members’ knowledge of what it takes to try to reduce the stress on their people and businesses in the town? Are the board members making decisions and voting on their own? Is it entirely a “One Man Show”? Do they even care?

The Town of Murray tax “rate” has risen from the lowest third in the county to the sixth highest in the last two years. The Town Board on Feb. 9 stated that it is considering cutting services or raising taxes in 2017.

Mr Sidonio pointed out ways to cut costs in fringe benefit areas to elected officials but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Murray it seems would rather pay elected officials thousands of dollars to receive payments for not taking health insurance particularly to those who are covered by spouses working at the county – in other words double-dipping.

A Town Board member and former school administrator that has experience in presenting budgets to the public in such a manner that forms a “Rose Colored Picture” so that the budgets will pass, talked about the 40 other towns in the western NY region. Forget about that scenario and concentrate on the towns in Orleans County which make up our real community.

This academic uses the liberal ideology of manipulating the facts to reach the desired results for his personal agenda. This same individual makes light of and glosses over the NYS Comptroller’s audit reports of both the Orleans County EDA – remember no “recapture clauses” – and the Town of Murray Capital Projects activity.

The two audits highlight the lack of accountability of the elected and appointed individuals to the taxpayers they represent. Thanks to Mr. Sidonio, an independent thinker who saw through the smoke and mirrors and posted the real local facts in front of us.

You would tend to believe that the Town of Murray being the “prime residence” of the Orleans County Republican Party chairman, the chairman of the Town of Murray Republican Committee and the Town of Murray Highway Superintendent all being the one individual would be a showplace of Republican values like “limited government” and “less taxation,” but that is not the case.

It is time the residents of Murray called their election district representatives, aka Murray Committee men/women and demand to know what in the sam hill is going on that makes it so important that taxes have to be raised by such a large percentage.

The former school official will accentuate the fact that I am not a Murray resident like he did with Mr. Longers letter on the Orleans Hub. (This was done verbally at the Murray Town Board meeting). I don’t care to see this type of mindset take root in other towns in the county or more so in the Orleans County Legislature. Hopefully the Murray residents will nip this practice in the bud.

If your election district committee person is unknown to you, call me at 659-8382 and I will get the information to you.

In closing, I would like to thank Mr. Sidonio for bringing this circumstance to the public’s attention.

Allen Lofthouse
Kendall
(Mr. Lofthouse is chairman of the Orleans County Conservative Party.)

Editor:

It has come to our attention that comments have been made in the local media about the tax rates in the Town of Murray. While we encourage healthy conversations about spending and services, we think it’s important that factual information be used to fuel this discourse across our county.

Listed below is just a summary of some of the facts. More detailed information is available at the Town Clerk’s Office or soon to be published on our website.

When comparing the tax rate of the Town of Murray for the past 5 years, (2012-2016), the Town has ranked in the top third of towns in Orleans County with the lowest tax rate. In most of those years, the Town of Murray tax rate has been below the average of all 10 towns in the county. Yes, the taxes have gone up in 2015 and 2016. The unexpended balance used to offset tax revenues has been depleted. That unexpended balance has been used in past years to keep taxes low and services high.

It has been suggested that the Town return to the days of previous administrations where “stretching a dime into a dollar” was the norm. When you actually compare the tax rates for the four years (1994-1997), those rates, (adjusted for inflation), were higher than the current 2016 tax rate – higher in some cases by over $1.15 per thousand! Perhaps the dime didn’t really stretch as far as we remember.

We always look forward to engaging dialogue with our community on methods we can employ to keep taxes low while maintaining the level of services our residents are accustomed to. We do believe however, that factually based, positive, respectful conversations will generate much more productive results than statements made in half-truths used to inflame community residents and service private agendas.

We will continue to work hard to provided the BEST services for the residents in the Town of Murray at a rate that is acceptable to all.

Murray Town Supervisor John Morriss
Town Council members

Paul Hendel
Kathy Case
Ed Bower
Lloyd Christ

Editor:

Another week has passed, and three more defendants have been charged by this office with producing or receiving child pornography. A 14-year-old girl murdered in Virginia. These and other cases share the common trait of alleged predators luring and manipulating children over social media.

It’s common to see teenagers attached to their cell phones throughout the day. Everyone knows that today’s device is a powerful internet access tool capable of connecting users to others throughout the world. Most seriously underestimate the frequency with which their children are exposed to sexually explicit texts and photographs.

According to one university study, 20 to 30 percent of teens will send or receive sexually explicit texts. Seventy percent of teen-age girls will be asked to send a naked picture. As our investigations demonstrate, such requests come from both peers and predators seeking contact with vulnerable youth.

Neither denial nor ignorance provide any protection for children caught-up in a perfect storm of technology and vulnerability. Rather, safety lies in constant parent/child communication, and adult education and familiarity with computer applications, teen-age realities, and even language.

As internet dangers have multiplied, parents today must be as conversant in discussing “bytes and bits” as they are in discussing the “birds and bees.” Kids are warned to avoid strangers, but they also need to know that strangers lurk online and online messages and photographs can be preserved forever. Not hitting “send” is the best defense against future regret.

I urge parents to take full advantage of parental controls to monitor usage, media activity, and who your child is contacting. Learn to detect vault applications and icons used to conceal explicit videos and photographs.

Finally, know the common social media sites and terminology used. Some are shocked when they discover what the code words and symbols being used by their children really mean.

Being a teenager can be exciting and difficult. Today’s technology and social media enhance both realities. By becoming a technology expert, parents and adults help children navigate these challenges before our office gets involved.

U.S. Attorney William Hochul
Buffalo

Editor:

I am so furious. I went to the “hearing” on the proposed wind law in Somerset last Monday. To call that a hearing is a joke. The Town Board called in no experts, heard no testimony with facts and had no briefing. What kind of hearing is that?

Basically they heard people on either side give their opinion and now they are going to vote on a law that has a bunch of opinions in it like, “Wind Energy Facilities are, by their very nature, not aesthetically pleasing.” Or, “Commercial/Industrial Wind Energy Facilities represent potential for extreme adverse aesthetic impacts.”

I think they are great to look at. Next thing you know they will just decide that they don’t like the color red, make up some supposed harmful health impacts and pass a law banning barns.

Linda Fisk
Lyndonville

Editor:

Thank you, Karen Jones. Had it not been for your defense of Jim Simon’s integrity, I might not have looked at Susan Campbell’s appallingly cynical letter questioning the motives of Simon, the Yates Town Supervisor and SOS member.

Ms. Campbell even suggests that Simon may be on the payroll of some mysterious shadow conspiracy group! Perhaps The Concerned Citizens of Orleans County are paying him!

There are obviously people who cannot comprehend those who do what they do, and take the positions they take, for no other reason than a desire to do what they think is right. I owe nothing to Mr. Simon and have spoken with him a grand total of 10 minutes in my lifetime. It would not surprise me for an instant if Mr. Simon was, for all intents and purposes, a relatively selfless man.

For Ms. Campbell to say that he surely does not represent the people of the Town of Yates begs two questions. For one, what do repeated survey results tell us about what the people of Yates think? Secondly, what does a successful write-in campaign for Supervisoragainst a popular incumbent Republicantell us about what the people of Yates think?

Ms. Campbell sounds like any number of disaffected citizens who want to “take their government back” when elections and the democratic process produce results they disagree with.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent, a.k.a. Don Quixote
Albion

Editor:

Hungry for recycled taxpayer money funneled into the so-called “green” energy agenda by state and federal subsidies, Apex (no so) Clean Energy LLC apparently brought in an invasion of union workers to chastise the Somerset Town Board at its own hearing on Feb. 1.

The reason? Somerset amended its own local zoning law. As a Somerset resident and farm owner, I resent the intrusion of union workers who do not live in Somerset. It would appear that Apex paraded them into our public hearing meeting to protest Somerset’s amended local law.

Industrial wind turbine facility would effectively make my town unfit for habitation of people, and irreversibly damage the ambient quiet countryside that I moved here to enjoy.

Somerset town residents pay town taxes, and therefore have the right to have a say in our own town government. The Somerset Town Board was very accommodating to the influx of iron workers apparently invited to our public hearing by the wind corporation.

One construction worker said that Apex had contacted many local construction companies about potential jobs. Actually the reality is that in many wind projects, out-of-state construction crews are brought in by the wind company.

In February of 2015, Vermillion, Illinois, not only did Apex bring in out-of-state contractors to construct their wind project, the leaseholders there ended up with mechanic liens on their lands, as Apex did not pay them at that time.

With Apex’s reputation in other wind projects akin to snake-oil salesmen, it’s obvious that the Town of Somerset is correct to do its due diligence to protect the natural environment, its own people’s health, safety, welfare, and property values, along with the comprehensive plan of the town.

An unbiased ad hoc committee was drafted to write this new zoning law. It had included the two Apex salesmen, along with citizens on both sides of the issue. Somerset tried to come up with a protective plan for the town suited to its character and its people. These meetings, taking place over a six-month period, were open to the public. The new 54-page law can be found on Somerset’s website.

The first in a long list of town findings states: “Short-sighted planning has often resulted in creation of problem industries that adversely affect public health and quality of life. Examples are found in Somerset, as well as in many other areas of Western New York. Wind energy facilities are not exempt from these findings.”

We will not sacrifice our homes, farms, and natural environment for a few pieces of silver. We have seen repeated lawsuits occurring in other wind turbine facilities because of negative impacts such as noise, that drive people out of their homes.

We are thankful that the Somerset Town Board is striving to preserve the valuable Lake Ontario natural migratory flyways, environment, along with protection of our property values. Once destroyed by slipshod placement of an industrial wind turbine facility, any attempt to rectify the situation then is impossible. Forever too little, too late.

The biggest insult is that the out-of-state Apex LLC tried to intimidate the Somerset Town Board with a veiled suggestion of a lawsuit. Despite the questionable ethics of Apex’s history of mechanics liens on unsuspecting farmers, their attempt to craft the local law by intimidation Monday night went beyond the pale when they suggested that this revamped town zoning law would not hold up in court.

Thank you, Somerset Town Board for your patience and loyalty to your citizenry.

I have lived through a carelessly sited wind project in Wyoming County. The result of living in too close proximity to 450-foot turbines resulted in destruction of the rural character, quality of life, and many other negative impacts mentioned in the findings of the Somerset amended local law. You cannot mitigate the damage done to relationships between family members, as well as the damage done permanently between lifelong friends and neighbors, dividing the town forever.

Therefore I agree with Somerset’s due diligence in the amending of the local law and agree with this statement when they say, “Local communities have, through site plan approval, regulation, and careful planning, been primary protectors of their citizenry.”

Cathi Orr
Somerset

Editor:

Mr. Burke, I never mentioned in my article not to pursue expensive audits or legal action. Just use judgment when exercising that option.

Would you care to inform the public the cost Gaines incurred in your action against the turbine and your own staff members?

Ed Urbanik
Lyndonville

Editor:

I am writing to defend the character of Jim Simon, who was unfairly maligned by Susan Campbell in her letter posted on Feb. 1. She clearly doesn’t know the man.

Here you have a person who, for the public good (more funding available for the town of Yates for other needed things), decided not to draw a salary. Instead of asking him personally about it, she turns something good into something suspect. She says, “What if he is being paid by someone else and his main objective is to oppose the Lighthouse Wind Farm?”

Really?

I know Mr. Simon. Since he is the Dean of our two local community college campuses, Mr. Simon has been my employer for the last 10 years at Genesee Community College. As such, I feel I can speak pretty confidently as to the person he is, and I can tell you two things that he puts before everything else: God, and family.

If Ms. Campbell had even a 20-minute conversation with him, she would see his quiet character shining through immediately. Frankly, I suspect his moral fiber is the number one reason he was elected as a write-in candidate: because the people that met him recognized goodness when they saw it. And, they trusted that he would act in their collective best interest in his capacity as a town leader.

Incidentally, if Ms. Campbell were truly interested in knowing Mr. Simon’s rationale for opposing the wind farm, perhaps she should go back and review the very thorough article on the Orleans Hub on Jan. 14. Click here to see “Yates Town Board officially opposes ‘Lighthouse Wind’.”

Lastly, I find it ironic that Ms. Campbell dismisses Mr. Riggi and Mr. Simon and says that neither are motivated by some “saintly” duty. Well, let’s see: they’re both brave enough to take on the established order; they both play David to Apex’s Goliath; they both act for the greater good from modest means, and neither expects a financial reward (but for the reward of God’s green earth and open sky, unbroken by naught but the flight and gyre of birds)

I don’t know! I think many of us’ll have to disagree, Ms. Campbell! They both sound kinda saintly to me!

Respectfully,

Karen Jones
Medina