 |
 |
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