As a former English teacher, I can testify that Al Fonzi writes correct English sentences. However, I would argue that his thinking is biased, as he limits his support to only the relatively few "authorities" who support his conclusions while ignoring the significantly larger body of "authorities" who contradict him. This places his essay, "A Terrible Deal" (March 14), in the category of propaganda rather than valid argument on a controversial issue. For Al Fonzi, this approach isn't new, but it is dangerous when forwarded by a man whose accompanying "bio" lists him as a former "Army lieutenant colonel of military intelligence."
Fonzi is a climate change denier, similar to our current leader, President Donald Trump, who claims there is no climate change because it still occasionally gets cold. To support his contention, Fonzi cites a handful of climate change deniers while ignoring the vast majority of climatologists who are warning us of the imminent danger to life as we know it. He ignores the unprecedented melting of the ice caps and the measured rising sea levels. He also claims that the current push for a green deal to correct the practices that are further endangering our world and its people is just a vast economic, anti-business conspiracy. He ignores the facts that interfere with his prejudices. More's the pity.
Then, as a "solution" for those environmentalists who "steadfastly oppose immediate remedies using proven technologies that are currently available to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions," he proposes nuclear power (there still isn't a good solution to the problem of storing radioactive waste, which remains potentially fatal for God only knows how long), "large hydroelectric projects" (ignoring the reality of extended droughts resulting from changing climate patterns), and "natural gas" (which is subject to accidental release during extraction, as was suffered by Porter Ranch residents not too long ago). All are flawed alternatives.
Then, to summarize, Mr. Fonzi compares "climate alarmists" to "religious cults predicting imminent doom, sitting on their rooftops, waiting for the end" and predicts that economic disaster would be eminent under a green deal that would make Americans "envy Venezuela" (a carefully selected allusion to a communist autocracy). His conclusions are neither valid nor productive but are purely political.
I, for one, am tired of Mr. Fonzi's slanted rants and propaganda, but I respect the principle of free speech and respect New Times' willingness to print my responses when I differ with him. Δ