Pro Humanitate

On Monday evening, Wake Forest University officials welcomed Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Mark Warner, D-Va., to campus for a “conversation” (“Burr: No impeachment prediction,” Nov. 12). We heard how the two ranking members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are friends, sometimes disagree, but always find a way to work together. Good.

The elephant in the room was Sen. Burr’s long record of not working across the aisle by consistently supporting Republican’s repeated efforts to thwart President Obama and his unwavering backing of our wholly unqualified and psychologically unfit current president.

It appears that the senator may have sold his moral compass to the lowest bidder. His blind loyalty to party over country and his betrayal of its democratic institutions and those who expect integrity and decency in government leaves an indelible stain on his office and legacy.

Perhaps Sen. Burr would respond to an invitation by the Journal to explain his choices to his constituents. Without such an explanation, it is difficult to align his behavior with the value of “Pro Humanitate” held dear by his alma mater.

Steve Rapp


Riding the wave

Dec. 31, 2025! If this date doesn’t have much meaning, then maybe many of us have been too busy winning or hating our political rivals to pay much attention.

Dec. 31, 2025, is the date that many provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that relate to individual income taxes will expire. That’s right, the tax cuts that many individuals are enjoying have an expiration date. However, the corporate tax cuts are permanent.

Also, by that date the U.S. budget deficit will have increased by an estimated $10 trillion. There is a high likelihood that the U.S. debt rating might be downgraded, and the U.S. will be paying higher interest on its debt, thus increasing the budget deficit even more.

So, while we are consumed with the coming 2020 elections and riding the current wave of economic prosperity, that wave will come to shore in a few short years in the form of an economic tsunami!

Grab your life vests and keep them close. All of this winning will come at a high cost later!

Johnny Lancaster


An overstated case

The laws of physics are sure. Climate science is based on physics. Therefore, climate science is sure, and we ignore its findings at our peril.

Does anyone see a problem with that? And yet that is what the letter “Ignoring physics” (Nov. 7) seems to assert.

In reality, climate science is more like biology than physics in that the systems it studies are extremely complicated. Individual elements of the climate follow physical laws, of course, but the identity of those elements and the complex interactions between them are difficult to ascertain. The findings of climate science are not as sure as the findings of physics.

Climate models, while useful, are only as good as their assumptions. There are variables they don’t model well. If you say you know what the climate of the Triad will be like in 80 years (as did the letter), then tell us your margin of error.

None of this means we don’t have a climate change problem. But the question is how much of that change is human-related. Fifty percent? Seventy? Thirty? If you haven’t truly defined the extent of the problem, you risk your solution will miss the mark. What then?

In my opinion, the letter overstated its case. When you do that, you lose credibility. Therefore, when you promote a solution, acknowledge the uncertainties. You’ll be more likely to get a fair hearing.

David Shuford


Please submit letters online, with full name, address and telephone number, to or mail letters to: The Readers’ Forum, 418 N. Marshall St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101. Letters are subject to editing and are limited to 250 words. For more guidelines and advice on writing letters, go to

Make sure you never miss our editorials, letters to the editor and columnists. We’ll deliver the Journal’s Opinion page straight to your inbox.

Load comments