In my experience, I have learned that letters to the editor space in
regional and local papers is usually reserved for submissions from the
community.  Therefore, your best chances of getting a letter printed
would be if you "borrow" someone else's letter text (plagerism is the
highest form of flattery!), sign it yourself (with your full name,
address and phone number) and send it on in.  I usually follow up an
electronic submission (email or fax) with a printed copy via snail
mail -- with a note that this is a hard copy of what was previously
faxed.

The usually range is 250-650 words, as was suggested elsewhere in this
list.  Take a look at how long the letters in your paper are --
standards vary from publication to publication and they usually print
some guidelines for you.

It is also very good practice to call the paper after a few days, ask
for the person in charge of letters to the editor, and ask if they
have recieved your letter and when do they plan to print it?  Then,
call again in a week-10 days.  Be persistant, but not annoying.

Good luck!




---William Heitman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> To improve our odds of success, by sending letters generated
locally, I think
> this is a better idea than me sending to diverse and distant places
>
> As I see it, we have two choices :
> 1. send a cover letter with it saying that this is the product of a
friend but
> the sentiment is also yours and would they be so kind as to publish
it in the
> 'letters to the editor" section.  Or,
>
> 2. change the William Heitman in the first line and the signature
block to
> your name and submit.
>
>
>
>
>
> My name is William Heitman and I am a PWP (Person with Parkinson's
Disease)
>
> If you had the opportunity to make up to a 1000 % annual return on an
> investment in one year, could you find the money?
>
> I recently went to Washington, DC as part of the Parkinson's Action
Network's
> fifth annual Public Policy Forum.  We "Parkinson's Activists" spent
the better
> part of a week (Jun 14-17) hearing about the latest research
funding, and how
> to approach Members of Congress.  On Tuesday the 16, we visited our
lawmakers.
>
> We are not paid lobbyists, but we are special.  We deal with this
disease
> daily.  We feel the public needs to know about our situation:
>
> The US economy loses about 25 billion dollars a year (that is 68.493
million
> dollars a day) to maintain about one million American PWP.  The
majority of
> the expense comes in the later years of the disease.  Our US
Government pays
> out a substantial part of that from your taxes-a conservative
estimate might
> be 20% of it, or five billion dollars a year (13.6 million dollars a
day).
> While we are grateful for the cash, too much of it goes for our
expensive and
> powerful pills.  We would greatly prefer a cure.
> However, that takes more money.
>
> The investment is one hundred million dollars a year for five years.
 This
> amount is not simply a nice round number.  Distinguished researchers,
> advocates and lawmakers worked together a few years back to decide
how much
> could be absorbed by projects of high scientific and/or clinical
merit by the
> PD research community.
>
> Lawmakers made possible that investment last year by passing into
law the
> Morris K. Udall Research and Education Act (The Udall Act).
However, that Act
> only "authorized" the spending of 100 million dollars.
"Appropriation" of the
> funds this year is still required.
>
> There is a powerful case for doing this.  For instance, if a cure is
achieved:
> --First, this great (up to 1000 %,) rate of return, as good as it
is, applies
> only to the first year without a 5 billion dollar direct cost of PD.
 Then
> things get better.  Today, that cost recurs yearly.  Funding a cure
for PD
> would begin a future when the Government benefits by that $ 5
billion , year
> after year-forever (much improving ANY yearly rate of return).
> --Second, saving the whole $25 billion should increase investment
and yield
> more tax dollars.  Ex PWPs could buy stock rather than pills.
>
> However, for any of this to happen the money is required .
> Every day's delay is another day of uncomfortable life for the PWP's
and
> 68.493 million dollars down the drain.  Time is money.  Time is
life.  Please
> help us to preserve both.  So far, there has been no appropriated
Udall Act
> money.
> Without this cash to speed them, researchers (funded by other
sources) have
> proceeded more slowly over the past five years.  Many important
projects await
> these funds.  Exciting leads are being explored, many more are
planned.
>
> There you have it, the possibility for saving 13.6 to 68.5 million
dollars a
> day, the possibility to stop a horrible disease.
> Would you help us do this?  Ask your Congress to fully fund the
Udall Act.
>  (one hundred million dollars).
> To call: dial the number
>                 `               (202) 224-3121
>
> The operator answers "Capitol."  Name the Legislator that you want
to call.
> They will connect you with his/her office.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> William H. Heitman, MD (Ret)
>
> Fortunately, past performance is not necessarily indicative of
future results,
> Like most investments, there are no guarantees--actual results may
vary
> depending on future costs, and other variables.  There exists the
possibility
> that the desired result may be more difficult or expensive than
expected.
> However, there is also potential for an even better rate of return
than 1000 %
> .
>

==
Leslie Lillard Walden  ([log in to unmask])
h:  617-424-9126       w:  617-563-7639





_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com