About that smart bartender, and I quote, from the FAQ sheet attached to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. Green New Deal Bill: “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.”

And then, referring to Amazon’s decision to not build a new headquarters on Long Island, there is this from Ocasio-Cortez’ Twitter account: “Today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers and their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation and the power of the richest man in the world.”

She had led a movement protesting a few million dollars’ worth of tax breaks New York was offering the giant company to build there. Prominent leaders of her own political party in her home state, Gov. Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, immediately blasted Ocasio-Cortez for her ignorance of the fact that Amazon would have brought 25,000-40,000 good-paying jobs to the state which would have generated billions in tax revenue.

But, according to Robert Dockery (letter, March 6), “AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) is a smart young woman who can think for herself and the GOP can’t stand that.” He also cited AOC’s education record.

I can only conclude that Mr. Dockery has never encountered the phenomenon of an educated fool before. There are many examples throughout history and in today’s society. If you go out in public, you can hardly swing a dead cat without hitting one!

In closing, I would like to tell Mr. Dockery two things.

First, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is clearly an educated fool.

Secondly, the GOP welcome’s AOC’s presence in the ranks of the Democrats. Every time she opens her foolish mouth, she helps Republicans in the next election.

Speaking of bartenders, I’ll drink to that.

Dave Malone




Don Iliff (letter, March 9) characterized my biblical world view as distorted Christianity, but as usual he avoids the issue under discussion, perhaps because he doesn’t have a valid defense for his position.

The question I raised previously for Don is narrow in scope, specifically, how does one who identifies himself as a Christian but votes and supports the Democratic Party reconcile the conflict between the party’s enthusiastic support of gay marriage and abortion, and the Bible?

If you are not a Christian, this issue becomes a matter of opinion, subject to debate, but the Bible is clear on these issues and God’s word is not subject to, or at least should not be subject to, debate for a Christian.

Iliff’s defense of his party’s position on controversial issues such as gay marriage and abortion is that we are a nation of laws and these practices are legal.

However, legal and right are two different issues and legal has a much lower threshold of morality in that it is simply a product of the political makeup of Congress and/or the courts at a given point of time. Man’s laws and court decisions are subject to review, revision and rescission but God’s laws do not change.

I have never suggested that we abandon our legal system in favor of a theocracy, as Don claims, but it is reasonable that a Christian should seriously consider whose law is most important when voting for those running for Congress who are charged with the responsibility of making the laws and confirming Supreme Court justices that govern our society.

Larry Richards




To Don Iliff (Reader’s View, March 5) I say, “Hear, hear.”

Dave Uitto

New Riegel