In the beginning...

I'm not quite sure where we'll go with this thing, but for starters, I'll post my various rants and ravings about the almost daily affronts to our sensibilities and liberties perpetuated by the current administration and its supporters -- then perhaps I'll be able to be a nice person in my day-to-day interactions! I've gotten a couple of letters to the editor published recently, so I'll post those, and then perhaps use this spot to work out my feelings about other things -- sort of a clearinghouse of commentary -- and pix of my doggie! Let's see how this thing works...

Robertson's remarks call for strong rebuke from White House

Published in USA Today Letters Section, August 26, 2005

If a major religious figure in any other nation were even to hint at the assassination of the president of these sovereign United States, he, and perhaps his country as well, would be excoriated for dangerous extremism and branded a terrorist — or worse.

When Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson publicly calls for the assassination of the duly elected president of the sovereign nation of Venezuela, the best and most conciliatory comment the Bush administration can muster up is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's embarrassingly noncommittal, "Our department doesn't do that type of thing." This is ineffectual at best, and implicitly approving at worst ("U.S. denounces assassination idea," News, Wednesday).

I must concur with Bernado Alvarez Herrera, the Venezuelan ambassador to the United States, who stated, "Mr. Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."

The same demand would be made by us of any other nation, and ignoring this imperative rightly invites accusations of hypocrisy and double standards at a time when we should be trying to mend our international reputation, not stubbornly and pridefully flout it.

'Intelligent design' debate is still evolving

Published in L.A. Times Letters Section, August 10, 2005

An informed public need not entertain any question or debate about whether or not "intelligent design," or ID, should be taught in public school science classes. The key point in this issue was beautifully and illustratively summed up in your Aug. 6 editorial, "Faith vs. evidence." The editorial states that "ID and evolutionary theory are not just irreconcilable; they are in realms as distant as astronomy and the polka." This is precisely the point. Evolutionary theory, whether one agrees with its every tenet or not, has a scientific basis and an explanatory capacity that ID simply cannot provide and does not attempt to offer. ID is not science. A point of view is not science. The answer is as simple and elegant as that.