Letters to the editor
Recently, both Matt Zalaznick and Alan Braunholtz dealt with the theory of intelligent design, which is an approach to studying how nature developed, as opposed to other theories, such as the natural selection ideas of Charles Darwin. As people of the left, these two create more heat that light and, of course, misrepresent the facts. They have it that the intelligent design forces are crackpots trying to jam that theory down the throats of gullible students, to the exclusion of the politically correct view, which is Darwinianism. Intelligent design theory holds that nature is too intricate to have happened by chance and natural selection. Its proponents say that if you examine something like a mammal’s eye, or a DNA chain, you will be struck by their complexity and symmetry, so that you suspect there may be some intelligent force behind it. You can call this force God, or whatever you like. But there is a rational basis for the theory. It deserves further investigation. To get a balanced view of the pros and cons, go to a search engine like Google and type in “intelligent design theory.” Read some of the articles cited. Decide for yourself what this theory means, and what you think of it. But don’t rely on the likes of Zalaznick and Braunholtz. As typical leftists, they don’t want you to get a fair and balanced presentation about a subject they feel strongly about. They rely on ignorance and emotion to promote their agendas. And notice how intolerant they are. They don’t just say we disagree with that idea and here’s why. Instead, they demonize those who have different views. This shows the authoritarian side of the left-wing mentality. Terry QuinnEagleBad policyI am deeply disturbed by certain aspects of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy, specifically support of apartheid regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt and in the areas proposed to be part of the autonomous Palestinian Arab Authority.The exclusion of Jews from their historical homeland in the areas proposed to be set aside for the autonomous Arab Authority is a policy no less vile and exclusionary than those of the former white supremacist regime of South Africa. As stated in an editorial in The New York Sun on Wednesday, May 11: “If Israel is indeed a vital friend and ally, it should be able to build houses for its citizens on land to which it has strong historic, legal, strategic, moral and religious claim.” Would we prohibit Native Americans from living in New York, Africans from living in Montana or Chinese from living in Maine? Why can’t Jews live in Gaza? Arabs live in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. What happened to the Jews of Cairo? How many Jews remain in Iran and Iraq? After thousands of years of living among Muslims, the Jews have been banished from their homelands. How can this administration support the banishment of Jews from Gaza? Will Tel Aviv and Jerusalem be the next targets to be made Judenrein? The New York Times on May 12 published a statement made by the Israeli Defense minister Shaul Mofaz: “After we evacuate the settlers,” he said, “we would have to maintain military forces, security guards and forces to destroy the houses in the middle of enemy territory?” Enemy territory free from Jews! Is this our idea of democracy in the Middle East? Freedom to live in peace and security behind ghetto walls is not freedom. We just celebrated the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism. Yet the administration is supporting regimes whose policies are amazingly similar to the supremacist philosophies of Hitler and his vile henchmen. I urge everyone to support a Middle East where all peoples can live where they want in peace and security. Arthur Kittay Eagle
Support Local Journalism
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Are we seeing more bears because there are more bears on the valley floor, or because we’re all spending more time at home? It could be a bit of both.