Tapestry beautiful but resources finite

My father was in the business of manufacturing textiles. A tapestry is the centerpiece of our family's living room. Jane Ballard's Sampler hangs on the far wall. From an early age I learned to behold the beauty found in woven, ornamental fabrics and knitted cloth. But of all the tapestries and "samplers" I have ever seen there is nothing so beautiful, good or true as the tapestry of life to which Brian Lawe refers in his Aug. 3 letter. Each new life adds to tapestry. Mr. Lawe is due thanks.

Perhaps my perspective of the biophysical world we inhabit as relatively small, evidently finite and noticeably frangible is mistaken. That may be so. It would please me so if it turns out that my observations are shown to be fatally flawed and Brian's perceptions of what is somehow real are altogether proven to be the correct ones. That will be just fine.

Because something is happening that continues to worry me and occasionally to awaken me in the middle of the night, I find myself sending dozens of letters to editors, hundreds of missives into the blogosphere and thousands of e-mails into cyberspace. Always the theme is the same. It is simply this: Earth's body is finite, its resources are limited, and its ecosystem services capable of irreversible degradation by the huge scale and anticipated growth of human over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities, the ones we see rampantly overspreading the surface of our planetary home in our time. Earth does not resemble a mother's teat at which the human species may forever suckle. Despite the assurances of many economists and politicians, Earth is not a cornucopia. No possible way.

The unbridled growth of the human species presents a colossal challenge to the family of humanity. The Earth as a constant, seemingly endless provider of whatsoever human beings desire is a fantasy ... a widely shared, consensually validated, distinctly human product of wishful and magical thinking. -- Steven Earl Salmony, Chapel Hill

Too many abusing handicapped parking

After reading the letter regarding housing problems for people with disabilities, I feel compelled to voice a concern about the lack of community will to accommodate people with disabilities in our area. In addition to a serious lack of handicapped parking spaces downtown and in shopping centers, there is the total lack of enforcement of these few spaces.

While my awareness is heightened by having a nephew with cerebral palsy and understanding the needs of the many 80- and 90-year-old residents of our retirement communities, my husband recently had surgery and is walking with crutches. While parking at the UNC hospital, I saw an employee in scrubs fly into a handicapped spot, jump out of her car and run down to work. At Southpoint mall, across from two restaurants, two out of four spots were taken by cars without handicapped stickers. As we left, the occupants of both cars were loading without a handicapped person in sight. At Whole Foods many people walk swiftly into the store after parking in the handicapped spots.

There are many people who could qualify for handicapped parking, but who realize there are those who need it more. In a community so generous and committed to our hospitals, particularly the Lineberger Cancer Center, to SECU House, Ronald McDonald House, and to our many retirement communities, I find it puzzling that the patients and residents, as well as the permanently disabled in the community, are not factored into decisions made about parking in our downtown areas, new developments and shopping centers.

A good start would be to enforce zoning law and require developers to provide every parking space the law requires, as well as to take the needs of the handicapped into consideration when designing this parking. However, the first step is making a commitment to being a compassionate community. -- Cynthia O'Hara, Chapel Hill

Palin supporters should review record

Has Karl Rove returned as the behind-the-scenes hitman for the Republicans?

Gov. Palin's mean-spirited attacks last Wednesday night on Sen. Obama and the millions of Americans who support him sounded very much as though Rove was orchestrating her performance. People should examine some facts about Gov. Palin's very extremist views.

Palin says the Iraq war is "God's task." Just six months ago, she told the Alaska Independence Party (a fringe group that calls for secession from the Union) to "keep up the good work."

She wants to teach creationism in the schools and abstinence only as sex education. I wonder if she now realizes that abstinence does not work for teens with their raging hormones, no matter how "good" the kids are. Regarding the global warming crisis, Palin has said she "would not attribute it to being manmade." Then who did it? The polar bears?

This "reformer" from Alaska had her inauguration sponsored by British Petroleum. While mayor of the metropolis of Wasilla Palin asked how to remove books from the public library for inappropriate language, and, according to press reports, threatened to fire the librarian for not supporting her. The Governor also originally supported the building of the infamous "bridge to nowhere," and only later reversed her position.

Karl Rove and the McCain/Bush crowd must think they died and went to far right heaven. Mr. McCain, what could you have been thinking? -- Neil J. Shipman, Chapel Hill

Palin speech omitted some of her positions

With the intensity of the mudslinging, false accusations, and downright slander going on at the Republican National Convention last week, it was easy to lose sight of who these candidates really are in the midst of thinking about who they claim their opponents to be. Sarah Palin neglected to mention many of her far-right positions in her speech. Anyone who is considering voting for her ticket needs to know about these lesser-discussed facts:

• She said that the war in Iraq is "God's Task," while admitting that she hasn't been following the events in Iraq very carefully.
• She has been involved with and sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party.
• She believes in the teaching of creationism in public schools, and has not clarified whether or not she believes in evolution.
• She does not believe that global warming is in any way manmade.
• She's closely associated with Big Oil; in fact, BP sponsored her inauguration.
• She doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape or incest.
• She believes in abstinence-only sex education, with no comprehensive curriculum.
• She tried to ban "inappropriate" books from the library, and threatened to fire the librarian who refused to remove them.
• Despite her talk about never supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere" project, in fact she did support it, before she opposed it.

These facts about Sarah Palin make it even more clear that she is not the person that our country needs as second in command. -- Caroline Griswold, Durham

Benefits of airport outweigh RDU?

Thanks for your reporting on the idea of relocating the UNC airport in Orange County.

I hope that future reports consider careful analyses of the justification for the university to have an airport in Orange County rather than using RDU. This must have been considered in detail during the approval process you identified.

Some of the questions I am interested in are as follows. How much ground travel time is saved or lost by having it in Orange County relative to RDU? How much money is saved or lost by having it in Orange County relative to RDU? How many residents are spared the noise and safety threat by having it in Orange County rather than RDU?

And, how much do the overall benefits of having the airport in Orange County outweigh the costs (economic and non-economic) when considered relative to an analogous equation for RDU? -- Karl Bauman, Chapel Hill

Palin criticism is hypocritical, blind

Perry Young's attack on John's McCain's selection of Sarah Palin (CHN Sept. 7) captures the essence of why the Democrats have failed to win the White House in the past two elections, despite circumstances which should have made them a shoe-in (economic prosperity in 2000, a difficult war in 2004). They cling to the arrogant notion that they are more intellectually gifted than those they oppose and seem incredulous at those who refuse to blindly follow a platform of unfettered access to abortion, government-mandated wealth redistribution, appeasement of our enemies, and an energy policy that although worthy in its desire to develop fossil-fuel alternatives, refuses to acknowledgement the realities of 2008.

Palin's success stands in opposition to the flawed concept that a "pro-choice" view is a prerequisite to the professional success of women and this is at the core of the Democrat's disdain for Sen. McCain's VP choice. The fact that they have been "scooped" by McCain selecting a member of a previously excluded majority faction (50.7 percent in 2006) doesn't help either. Sarah Palin clearly has just as much experience as Sen. Obama who has spent more time as a presidential candidate than a productive senator. To ignore this is either hypocritical or blind on the part of Mr. Young and the Democrats. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party and Mr. Young, they continue to refuse to engage those on the other side of their platform and as such, McCain will be seen as the candidate who can truly change the rancor in Washington and work in a bipartisan manner to get us beyond the current polarized situation. Lacking common sense, the Democrats again risk being left to scratch their heads as to why they lost in a year where the economy is teetering and the country is still embroiled in two wars. -- Bryan Clary, Chapel Hill