Show off your holiday lights and you could win an iPad! Enter your photo by December 13. Winner will be selected by popular vote.
Friday, June 14, 2013
A greater show of intolerance
Jessee Ring’s commentary “Liberal intolerance on full display” (June 5, responding to a May 21 editorial: “Va. Republicans turn far right”) could accurately be characterized as conservative intolerance on display. Although, ostensibly, he addresses himself to left-wing liberals, we know from arch-conservatives like Ann Coulter and company that all liberals, as well as liberal political philosophy, are anathema to them, even treasonous.
I listened to the remarks of E.W. Jackson and the tone of those remarks. He fits the profile of the arch-conservative. That he is a capable black man plays no part in that assessment.
That the current GOP is controlled, to its detriment, by a far-right element is recognized by moderate Republicans like former Sen. Robert Dole. Given that reality, for an editorialist to critique a slate of nominees from a liberal standpoint is not to be intolerant. The tone of Ring’s article reveals an intolerance on his part.
Our political system needs both liberals and conservatives, whether center-right or center-left. It does not need a political party that considers its philosophy to be absolute truth, a party unwilling to compromise to advance legislation beneficial to all citizens, a party content to obstruct anything Obama/Democratic, duly elected by the people. That very well may be the greater intolerance.
A good point, but the Duke didn’t make it
Re: Ben Barber’s “Why foreign aid is not a foreign policy” (June 9 commentary):
The author certainly raises many salient points for consideration. But in the future Barber might wish to confine his references or examples to his obvious areas of expertise. Even a movie novice knows that Gary Cooper was trying to hang up his six-guns in the Western classic “High Noon.” John Wayne starred in many memorable oaters, but the Duke never appeared in this film.
Just the same old creationism fallacies
Paul W. Smith’s June 10 commentary (“Much conjecture, scant evidence of man’s evolution”) opens with an inaccurate statement. He asserts that science relies on the fossil record to “prove” evolution. This is false.
True science never tries to “prove” evolution. Evolution simply explains the development of species consistent with, and based on, scientific laws described in physics, chemistry and geology.
While there is disagreement among scientists about certain facets of evolution, there are no peer-reviewed research papers rejecting evolution. If Smith is a creationist, he should provide evidence supporting creationism. Instead, like all creationists, he uses logical fallacies to make his argument. He uses the argument from ignorance by pointing out perceived flaws in fossil evidence. This does nothing to prove creationism.
Smith ignores how evolution explains genetic and physiological similarities among species. Humans share 96 percent of their genome with chimpanzees. A human skeleton resembles a whale’s more than that of a lizard. Evolution explains why a trilobite fossil will never be found with a cat.
Smith cites a lack of convincing evidence for evolution.
He subscribes to a dogmatic belief system that will always reject contrary evidence. Meanwhile, science marches on.
Perhaps the other driver bears blame
Re: Karl Geisler’s letter (“Truckers, don’t be intimidators, June 7 Pick of the day, in which he complained of truckers who “roll up behind a car to try to push it to get out of the way or go faster”):
In 36 years driving, I have never had a trucker do that to me when I drive in the right lane and pass in the left.
I suggest maybe Geisler should take a refresher course in driving. I’ll bet he only moves to the right-hand lane to get off the interstate, likely without a lane change signal, as well.
Weather Journal7 wintry scenarios for Sunday