DEATHLY DEM SCIENCE
Re: George Neumayr's Medicine Men:
Step Up, George --
Not strong enough. You say: "Democrats ... are not the party of medicine but of medicine men. They are not the party of science but of scientific mumbo-jumbo."
They are the party of death. And now "Dr." Frist has joined them in a more profound defection than Jeffords'.
God said: "Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jer. 1:5).
Who knows how many saints and prophets were ripped apart and turned into medical waste, or 486'ed into a tampon? With every breath I take, I am astounded by the arrogance that surrounds us. Takes some really big balls to veto our Creator.
-- John D.
Embryonic stem cell research is intrinsically evil. It sacrifices the life of an innocent human being for the welfare (good intentions) of helping the living. Where is the public discussion about adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells, which have the greater potential for helping those living with physical problems?
Where are the trial lawyer television ads? You know, the ones who go after such drugs as Bextra, Vioxx, Zyprexa, to name a few. You'd think the trial lawyers would be anxious to handle cases of women who have suffered (and died) because they took the "morning after pill" or RU-486. Calling John Edwards!
Democrats worship at the altar of abortion. Their religion has brought us abortion on demand at any age of the unborn child, embryonic stem cell research and utter disrespect for the dignity of women.
-- Clasina Segura
New Iberia, Louisiana
George, you bore me. You are not a journalist, you spread hate. Why don't you do something constructive, maybe something that makes the American "Pie" bigger.
-- Karl Rudolf
This article pretty much shows how low we have become in our understanding of science and personal responsibility. Technically no drug is ever "safe," even aspirin. Some segment of the population will have an adverse reaction to any particular drug. Most of the population of this country can take penicillin. I on the other hand would have a reaction that sends me to the hospital. But I would not advocate that penicillin be removed from the market. The advantages are too great. I must take personal responsibility to not ingest that drug.
The ideology part I am afraid masks a much larger problem in health care. A large segment of the population that would not trust a car salesman to sell them a lemon, will blissfully hand over their body to treatments without one wit of concern to the risks involved. It is not a triumph of efficacy of the healthcare system but willful ignorance on the part of a large patient base to not ask questions. That kind of blind faith translates over into macro level decisions in the healthcare industry. A leading indicator of this was just how far Ms. Hillary's Health Care Task Force got before people started blowing the whistle.
An individual's health is the most precious thing they can possess. That so many are willing to plead ignorance baffles me.
-- John McGinnis
I have decided that if the Dems' lips are moving they are lying. They are just on the wrong side of every thing most Americans are for. Good maybe more will be gone in 2006.
-- Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas
GO TO TERROR'S SOURCE
Re: Christopher Orlet's A Phony Fatwa:
I double-Pleszczynski dare you to read and then print what the Koran actually says about Jews, Christian, and unbelievers. Despite all the post-9/11 commentary, I find it very interesting that, to the best of my knowledge, this has never been done by any media in the West. I don't want to spoil the Big Finish, here, but your readers... and maybe some others... might find such research helpful in understanding why the SILENCE CONTINUES TO BE DEAFENING from the Mosque communities here in the face of world-threatening terrorism. Hint: Because we here, in the West, do not take our own purported religions seriously (all we really have to do is "be a good person") we find it impossible to believe that anybody else might take their own teachings seriously. We're all just "Nice People" right? Can't we all just get along, with a little smooth talk from Jimmy Carter? Cordially repeating the dare,
-- Gene Wright
Laguna Niguel, California
THE CHILD PENALTY
Re: Paul Chesser's Unintentionally Illogical:
I have been saying for years, if instead of giving a woman more money for every child she has and can't afford, money should be taken away for each extra child. The welfare moms would quickly learn to keep their legs closed or get contraception. Maybe I should run for Congress.
-- Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas
Excellent article. Funny thing is the conservatives from a political view probably should not oppose liberals' wanton abortion mantra, morals aside. Sufficient studies have been conducted that indicate that political viewpoints are a learned behavior from your parents. So if liberals are the only people having abortions then over a couple of generations liberals will die off. Quite a paradox, no?
-- John McGinnis
Re: Dr. Gregory C.D. Young's letter (under "Order from Chaos?") in Reader Mail's Pennsylvania Stories:
I recently read Dr. Gregory C.D. Young's letter on this subject. It was beautifully written and presented a cogent, logical argument supporting the theory of Intelligent Design as being superior to Evolutionism.
There is just one thing about this debate that no one seems to mention. No one, living on Earth, knows the actual truth about the creation of life on Earth. Both sides surmise the truth, but no one knows. This entire debate is based on presumptions made about events to which there is no living witness and which are based upon scraps of the past as embodied in fossils. And recent "discoveries" changing long accepted assumptions made concerning the nature of the dinosaurs illustrates just how unreliable it is to base scientific truth upon such evidence.
The simple answer, and simple is always better, is that the truth is unknown to man. Theory of evolution, whether based on Darwinian theory or Intelligent Design theory, is still theory. The argument concerning what to teach concerning the evolution of man as a species is whether or not to give equal time to mankind being a product of God the Creator or a happy accident in a cosmic lottery. So if you are going to introduce students to one unprovable theory, there is no reason not to introduce them to two unprovable theories. I, for one, am reluctant to discount any reasonable theory of evolution without more empirical evidence.
As mankind ventures further out into the universe, or possibly discovers a way to see into the past, more information will be gained which will, in turn, make it possible to refine the theory of the origin of life on Earth. The final answers may surprise us. But then, the universe is a surprising place.
-- Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
THE MISSING PIECE
Re: Bob Martin's letter (under "Defending the Faith") in Reader Mail's No More Monkeying Around:
Someone posted: "Every time I read an article like George Neumayr's 'The Monkey Wrench' which is in defense of Intelligent Design of the universe as opposed to Darwinism, I am always stopped short by the question of who created the Creator. I would love to have a sensible answer to that and not just the hackneyed 'you have to take it on faith.'"
Actually, the fact that it can't be answered lends credence to belief in the Creator. In fact, the same question could be posed to the agnostic: If this world were created randomly, then who created the matter from which it was built? Common sense would dictate that everything would have to have a beginning and thus a divine entity had to create the very beginning. This is much more plausible than what the agnostic would suggest.
The perspicacious non-scientist may have the advantage here. We live in a world that was divinely created, and the poor scientist, spending a lifetime attempting to understand what can't be understood through science, has dismissed the possibility of the Creator because his science can't explain it. The more he attempts to understand it, the deeper the rut he digs. Much to some scientists' dismay, DNA tests proved that we are not descended from Neanderthals. Subsequently, scientists were forced to go back to the blackboard. More and more scientists have started to embrace the idea of a Creator; those are the scientists who can think outside of the box.
Also, have you ever noticed that when you ask someone to "explain" his/her reasoning behind the belief that we were created randomly, the answer always comes in the form of a truculent response (which is a method used when one doesn't have much of an argument)?
It's almost amusing -- almost. The ongoing and apparently never-ending debate about God's Creationism or the evolutionary theory. And since I don't trust Pat Robertson any more than Jesse Jackson, the super-sanctimonious James Dobson any more than the ACLU's Rev. Barry Lynn -- and since I have little faith in the various other presumed all-knowing loudmouths, I tried to apply a little logic.
And perhaps "little" might be the key word -- 'cause aren't we guilty of being a tad or two too presumptuous?
Like, why would God give sheep their unique eyes, cats a different version; fish, eagles, humans and horses their eyes? Moles and bats? Or why are elephants the only guys with knees on all four legs? And, indeed, why did God choose to make such interesting things trunks for elephants, or was that an evolutionary thing? Or snakes - with those forked tongues. Microscopic dust-mites?
Perhaps it's a little simpler -- like, has it ever occurred to anyone (other than members of AA) that perhaps God has an amazing sense of humor? Or that we're His version of an ant farm?
Seems as if the too many self-appointed authorities are continuing to overcomplicate things. Or do they simply love to hear themselves expound on stuff they think might sound more impressive than other folks'?
Why don't we all just agree to back off a bit and, rather, just speculate on that new planet out beyond Pluto. Why Jack had the good taste to introduce Ciabatta bread and rolls to fast food. Or why we were privileged to have such amazingly wonderful people as Ben Franklin, Benny Golson, Winston Churchill (and Ward Churchill? Noâ€¦) -- and the person who discovered garlic.
Perhaps now might be a good time to lighten up and simply enjoy what we have, 'n not continually indulge ourselves in arguments as to why -- thank God.
-- Geoff Brandt
KEEP OUR RIGHTS
Re: Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder's Searches Make Sense:
I just read Jackie Mason's and Raoul Felder's article "Searches Make Sense." I have to point out that terrorists know we are looking for Arabic looking Muslim men. So one of their strategies is going to be to kidnap a white family and force the white man to carry out a terrorist attack, for if he doesn't, the terrorists will kill his family. Now they could also do this to the family of blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavian transsexuals wearing snowshoes. And if the police do not consistently do random searches of everyone, this poor blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavian transsexuals wearing snowshoes covered in explosives will get passed them and kill everybody in order to save his family and loved ones.
Also, there will be no home grown terrorist coming out of the indigenous Muslim population here in the U.S. American Muslims are very patriotic, and know a good thing when they see it: America. We need to concern ourselves with the chronically miserable Muslim youths of Western Europe. But we can not afford to give them 100% of our attention because that little girl and he mom boarding that train, may have five kids at home being held at gun point by terrorists. Let's be smarter than they are and not racially profile one group.
Also, I am not sure if you have gone to the movies lately, but special effects makeup has gotten pretty good. If it is possible to turn two black men into blonde teenage girls, then how hard would it be to turn light skinned Arabic men into blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavian transsexuals wearing snowshoes?
Also how far are we willing to go to stop people from being killed? We obviously are not going very far when it comes to safety in cars or we could put governors on all vehicles so they can't go faster then 75 MPH. We don't mandate wear helmets in cars which would significantly save lives. We don't mandate compulsory swim lesson for all children in this country, though that would save many more thousands of lives each year than die in terrorist attacks. And we don't mandate that all adult males have a healthy body mass index, but yet that would save thousands of lives, again many more than die in terrorist attacks.
Terrorists win when we take away our own liberties, thus fundamentally distorting our free society. If as President Bush says, "they hate us because of our freedom," then they win if they scare us into taking our own freedoms away. Just like using our planes against us, they us our own fear against us to destroy our way of life. They love it -- that is their point. They want to punish us for being the most powerful country in the world. If we do like Tony Blair says, and live our lives normally, the terrorists loose.
-- Bill Tiller
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article