Readers write, Aug. 1

COMMENTARY

When making criticism, who’s the expert here?

A letter writer bemoans Mike Luckovich’s political satire as liberal-biased, and disregarding experts (“Cartoonist’s attacks on GOP getting old,” Readers write, Opinion, July 29). The writer infers that Luckovich is an expert in nothing. I make no claim about being a Mensa candidate, but I wonder how many Pulitzer Prizes are on the letter writer’s mantle.

Regarding the writer’s claim that “Obamacare has been touted by most experts as a financial disaster,” Paul Krugman recently stated that “Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Barack Obama’s signature policy achievement, is probably going to work” (“Will GOP risk economy in fit over Obamacare?” Opinion, July 27).

I wonder if winning a Nobel Prize qualifies one as an expert, or must one spout right-wing talking points to be classified as an expert in the eyes of this writer?

ALFRED SMITH, MARIETTA

RACE RELATIONS

Many black leaders too quick to stir pot

I’m writing regarding the Thomas Sowell column, “Call this progress? Blacks see racism in their own” (Opinion, July 23).

Mr. Sowell has always been at the top of my list of opinion columnists. He invariably “tells it like it is” and doesn’t seem to follow an agenda. In the case of the referenced column, there is no doubt that he is entirely correct in his opinion that many black “leaders” have stirred the pot of racism without pausing to thoroughly examine the facts or circumstances involved. The general public — and a large percentage of the local population — are prone to follow the “guidance” of these self-proclaimed experts, which sometimes leads to violence. We need to follow the adage, “Look before you leap.”

BOB GRAYSON, CUMMING

AIR QUALITY

Analysis disproves fossil plant’s promise

“Proposal addresses pollution at Navajo coal plant” (ajc.com, July 26) did a good job of covering many issues, with one major exception. The proponents’ claim, that it will do a better job of reducing nitrogen oxide pollution than normally required control technology, doesn’t hold up to analysis.

The alternative pathways in the proposal all result in more pollution being released over the Grand Canyon and other parks in the region. It is a good first step to finding a creative way to reduce pollution while making a transition to cleaner forms of energy, but the alternative needs to be refined to ensure pollutant reductions meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

KEVIN DAHL, ARIZONA PROGRAM MANAGER, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION