A call to stop calls, Penn State’s expenses, and more: letters to the editor

Calling for help

I believe that I have a problem that our President, both Houses of Congress, our recently re-elected Governor and both chambers of our state legislature can come together and solve. I am sick and tired of receiving telephone solicitation calls from computers!

I received one today from a cell phone number of a business associate and when I answered the phone thinking there was some emergency or issue, a computer voice came on the line and tried to sell me health insurance. My wife and I have all of our telephone numbers on the national Do Not Call list but that doesn’t seem to matter any more.

Mr. President, Senator Toomey, Senator Casey, Governor Wolf, or anyone in Harrisburg, how about tackling this issue? I understand from acquaintances [elsewhere] that it’s just as bad as it is in Pennsylvania.

On second thought, I bet this will never get solved because the telephone solicitation industry probably pays millions of dollars to these politicians to support their campaigns. - Carl Raup, State College, PA

‘Transparency’

Your article dealing with PSU expenses is flabbergasting. In fiscal year 2016-17, it paid out in settlement claims, expenses and other “costs” a grand total of $20.9 million dollars and in year 2017-18 $7.5 million dollars. I assume that monies paid to Freeh were not part of the calculations.

It would be refreshing if Eric Barron and his cronies on the Board of Trustees disclose the total net cost paid for the whole sordid debacle, taking into account the amount of insurance paid, with particularity, amounts and recipients.

It would seem to me that it is now high time for Eric Barron to fulfill his previous “grandstanding” commitment vis a vis the Freeh report for which PSU allegedly paid in excess of $8 million dollars. It is simple arithmetic and transparency should be the conduct expected of ALL who control the purse strings. - Piet H. van Ogtrop, Boalsburg, Pa

‘Deniers’

Climate change falls into the category of “settled science.” It was first proposed prior to 1900 and everything since then has supported its existence.

So except for some outliers like Trump, Glenn Thompson, and Tom Marino, the issue of whether there is climate change or not isn’t really an issue. So why are they opposed to such “settled science,” especially after the evidence from this year – again being the hottest on record?

The reason is they get money to run their campaigns from companies that benefit from denying climate change. We already have the evidence of what happens when there is serious climate change. And the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has now predicted that we will see major problems within 20 years.

But these deniers are willing to push the change to 2 degrees centigrade through their policies on coal burning and gas mileage on cars. Is it really worth conducting this experiment? We will all pay a heavy price. How can we stop this reckless behavior? Let your elected congressmen know how you feel.

Also, since renewable energy has poor reliability, the source of backup electricity is important. Fossil fuels pollute the planet while nuclear power gives off no CO2. And nuclear is much safer than burning coal.... In Pennsylvania, 41% of electricity comes from nuclear power but some of these reactors may be shut down and replaced by high carbon emission sources including natural gas. - Edward H. Klevans, State College, PA