Letters for Liberals in Lawton

[rickrok66]

I am posting these letters and articles to my journal and in the Oklahoma Forum. I have sent almost all of these to the Lawton Constitution, but haven't had any published since December of last year. I don't know the reason. Anyway, I offer these letters to fellow liberals in Oklahoma for you reading pleasure and to copy these from one online journal to another.

For the Journal of Byron Saint Paul

LTTE: The Electoral College 12 May 2006

I would like to address Ms. Phyliss Schlafly’s May 12 editorial, “The subversive plan to ditch Electoral College”. It is easy to attack another’s proposal when you use words like “subversive”, “plot”, and “un-American”. I guess the attack is necessary when you cannot critique an argument using sound logic. This editorial, which shows her age, was obviously lifted from the transcript of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the 1950s. The Campaign for the National Popular Vote, whether you support reform of the Electoral College or not, is an above board lobbying effort made up of an independent who ran for President, John Anderson, Senator Bayh – a democrat, and John Buchanan, “a life-long Republican”, as quoted by the campaign’s website. It is not made up of frustrated plotting liberals. Maybe it is time to reform and do away with the Electoral College. We have the technology to count the popular vote. We did reform the past voting for Senators and made that election process a popular vote during the Wilson administration. The campaign to make “Every Vote Equal’ is exactly what it means; it is not based on vote stealing. The elimination of the Electoral College will give one person – one vote rather than three electoral votes from Wyoming, which equals 169,000 votes for each electoral vote versus California who has 55 electoral votes and gets about 636,000 per electoral vote. So, who is getting short changed under the current system? Is it the bulk of the population who cares about its own economic self interest, public transportation and education? Or is it a handful of people in the Midwest who turn a national election into a referendum banning gay people from getting married?

LTTE: Geyer's Editorial on Immigrants, 9 May 2006

I would like to address Ms. Georgie Ann Geyer’s May 9th editorial, “Immigrants’ demands display a perversion of language”. In this editorial, Ms Geyer attempts without success to solve the immigration problem by associating protestors with communists. You won an argument with a conservative when she calls you a commie. She further helps the cause by saying that the work of illegal aliens in this country is not part of America so their labor doesn’t count. Finally, she misses the point on the use of “la raza” and multiculturalism. May Day was established as a goal in 1886 to have everyone including children to work an eight hour day versus a fourteen hour day. The campaign was started by the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada and strikes were organized by the Working People’s Association. Communists as Ms. Geyer understands them were not created until a party conference in 1903. Immigrants (illegal and legal) provide more labor and support for our economy than she thinks. If the government would enforce laws and make employers hire legal aliens or pay everyone a living wage under a guest worker program, you wouldn’t have such a problem with illegal aliens. Most Americans would be willing to take jobs such as strawberry pickers if it paid the value of labor, offered some benefits and on-site safety protections. Finally, she hammers the nail in the coffin by insuating that Mexicans are racists when they use the term “la raza” when it can be translated as “the people”. This leads to her premise that Democratic multiculturalists believe that all cultures are equal. No, we believe that people should be treated equally – egailte. We also believe in fraternite or the solidarity of humanity –a belief to help all of humanity regardless of culture and national boundaries. May you have a belated happy May Day and Cinco de Mayo.

LTTE: Coulter's College Tuition Editorial 8 May 2006

I would like to address Ann Coulter’s May 8th editorial, “College tuition soars because of knowledge shortfall”. Ms. Coulter uses the tried and true method of conservative discourse by argument via an attack on someone else and argument by exception. Yes, CNN did report on the rising prices of gasoline and college tuition. However, both commodities demand different solutions. To compare a handful of college professors who make over $100K per hour to oil executives who make millions and in some cases hundreds of millions is ridiculous. First, professors and others in academia serve the public in that they build the next generation of citizens who will be tax payers, parents, and the electorate. Oil executives make profits from a self created need in the American public to purchase gasoline. For most Americans, they need a car to drive to work or their children to school because any type of public transportation is labled as some kind of socialist plot. Americans are also convinced by a bombardment of car commercials that it is our manifest destiny to ride oversized tacky looking SUVs. Academicians in this country at least have some contact with the American public. The French nobility of the 18th century had a better understanding and compassion for the lower classes than our estate of oil nobles. Ms. Coulter goes on to bring up the ever popular Ward Churchill who earns a six figure salary. By the way, Ward Churchill has an honorary doctorate of humane letters from Alfred University. Second, Rachel Maddow of Air America radio received a Rhodes scholarship and earned a doctorate at Lincoln College of Oxford University, not exactly a fake degree that Ms. Coulter insinuates. I do agree with Ms. Coulter’s conclusion on hearings on the salaries for professors. The first question is why we are paying college instructors five figures when we have stupid bowl games that generate millions of dollars in revenue to promote mediocrity and salsa chips.

LTTE: Pat Buchanan, Cradle to Grave Dead in Europe, April 6, 2006

I am writing in response to Pat Buchanan’s editorial, “Cradle-to-grave security is dead on the Old Continent published on April 6th, 2006. In his editorial, Mr. Buchanan celebrates the end of government programs that helps anyone who works for a living. His conclusion is loosely based on some related recent events in Europe and that he happened to read a newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch on March 29th. The welfare state system developed by Maynard Keynes lasted from the Bretton-Woods Conference in 1944 and started its downward trend in the early 1970s. Multi-corporations couldn’t settle just for two percent growth every year in the 1960s and encouraged countries to move toward globalization. Mr. Buchanan puts on his tin foil hat and blames Europe’s lack of going to church and love of life for its downfall. The fact is that corporations for years have been disregarding any type of national allegiance in the lust for more profits. They are able to take advantage of the portability of capital and leverage it against the static nature of labor. “Let’s go where they have no minimum wage or regulations”. Of course, Europe and the United States are hurt because we have these laws and policies – those that are set up to provide adequate pay and safety for workers. This spin down in pensions, pay, and other government programs will go on until corporations run out of third world countries. Eventually, countries like India and China, “the worker’s paradise” will challenge their employers and demand more pay and benefits. The end of his editorial is a dire warning that actually confirms my belief in government programs to assist workers. Yes, globalization is here Mr. Buchanan, but it is a double edged sword. Eventually, the same countries that your corporations are exploiting now will enact laws and regulations like the western democracies did in the early twentieth century.

Letter: Ann Coulter and Congress 3 APR 06

I am writing to mark a special occasion: this is the first time that Ann Coulter wrote an editorial without any racial slurs or any other displays of her well known dementia. I am referring to her editorial published on 3 April 2006 in the Lawton Constitution. Of course, I take exception to her arguments. Her first premise is that the Republicans are giving up support for the war in Iraq in fear of losing the upcoming mid-term elections. There is a connection between the increasing numbers of casualties in the war and the declining approval ratings for Congress. However, there are several other factors that Republicans must address instead of spinning them. The GOP brought on this implosion of power just like they did in the mid-1990s. In the last decade, the Contract on America led to an atmosphere of mean-spirited disregard for the poor. When republicans threatened to eliminate the minimum wage, school lunch programs, and the Head Start program, there was a large public backlash. Currently, the GOP is in the same position of power. But in this go-around of unchecked power, the GOP doesn’t just have the meanness of the 104th Congress. They aren’t out to cut funds, but have increased government spending, albeit, it is all for the benefit of the health care and energy industry. This Congress’s biggest problem is not just the war or out of control spending. It is the lack of oversight. The basic duty of the Congress is to serve as one of the three equal but separate branches of government. However, in the last six years, Congress has abrogated its responsibility to the unitary executive, refusing to investigate its own unethical behavior, and refusing to require business executives and appointees to swear under oath. No, Miss Coulter it is not just the war, but the war and everything else that is bringing down the Republicans. Now, see how easy it is to right an article without foaming at the mouth.

LTTE: 1 April on Judicial Activism

I would like to address the editorial written by Walter Williams, titled “Do We Want Judicial Activism or Restraint?” and published on April 1st. Mr. Williams does what most conservative pundits do – they ask the wrong question, define their own terms, and then end their argument with an illogical conclusion. The matter is not on whether judges should be so-called activists or be restrained to just interpret matters using the United States Constitution. The matter is what the duties of judges are. Black’s Law Dictionary states that a judge is “A public official appointed or elected to hear and decide legal matters in court”. How does a judge decide a legal matter? Most decisions are based on precedent or past decisions of the court. This concept is called stare decisis. It has been around since before the Constitution and in fact we had it when George III was the boss. This concept drives conservatives crazy because they can’t always misuse the Bible or the Constitution to take away civil liberties or make the world safe for Multinational Corporations. Judges also use binding precedent or imperative precedent. Binding precedent includes stare decisis as well as following decisions made by higher courts. Finally, judges may use “persuasive precedent” or according to Black’s Law Dictionary – “A precedent that is not binding on a court, but that is entitled to respect and careful consideration”. So, there it is, judges can use international law, United Nations treaties and policies, and rulings made by foreign courts when considering their decisions. Why is Mr. Williams so upset anyway? The Supreme Court is now stacked with right wing fanatics. In a few years, Christianity will be made the official state religion and the Bill of Rights will be right-sized to just the Second Amendment.

Letter: Neo-cons and torture

The past few weeks have marked two special events in history. On June 15, 1215, King John 1 signed the Magna Carta at Runymede. The second event is the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. These dates are important because they show an evolution of common law and democracy which is the greatest strength of Western civilization.

In his July 7th editorial, Max Boot justified the use of torture on enemy combatants and terrorists because they would do it to their prisoners. Max Boot also said that it is okay to disregard treaties like the Geneva Convention because they (the enemy) don't understand the Western tradition.

I would like to remind Mr. Boot and others out there that is exactly why the Western tradition is better. The United States is an admired country because we respect the rule of law. It is expected of us. We need to do a better job of obeying own laws and international law, instead of shopping for legal reviews and making poor arguments to justify the detaining of people without charging them and the use of so-called aggressive interrogation techniques.

The western tradition is not having a democratic choice between Coca Cola and Pepsi , but rather the culmination of the Ancient Greek notion of democracy, the concept of the Roman Republic, and almost 800 years of English common law.

It was King John at Runymede who first made a reference to what we now call the Writ of Habeas Corpus. - "…to no one will refuse or delay, right or justice." "No freeman shall be arrested or detained in prison …unless by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land."

LTTE: Hollywood, War, and Cultural Abuse

I want to address the editorial, "Cultural self-abuse: Movies and the military", by Richard Hart Sinnreich, published in the Sunday Edition of the Constitution on June 5, 2005.
Sinnreich referred to a lecture given by Michael Medved in 2004 about Hollywood and how it portrays the military. Michael Medved is a known conservative film critic. Medved's lecture and Sinnreich's thesis show that Hollywood makes movies which are inaccurate, anti-American, and anti-military. Both author and critic believe that since Hollywood has largely not participated in the all volunteer force it has become a cultural elite which is out of touch with the rest of America.

I submit the following to refute these arguments. First, as Sinnreich stated, I would like to know what movies in recent history have shown the military to be "sick, warped, and demented." The bigger problem in Hollywood is that it takes the Army of One concept way too far. Every soldier portrayed in Hollywood films, aside form Saving Private Ryan and Blackhawk Down, is some kind of Glimmer Man, ex-cook, ex-Navy Seal, ex-Foreign Legionnaire, who reluctantly comes back out of retirement to save the world. Watch any Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Segal film.

Second, the purpose of an all volunteer force is to absolve everyone from having an obligation to enlist in the armed forces. Yes, Jimmy Stewart signed up for World War II and a host of others. Just like John Wayne was a Green Beret in Vietnam - oh yeah that was just a movie.

Third, I would like to know where all the cultural elitism is in Hollywood. Between Paris Hilton whoring for hamburgers and Britney Spears' chicken fried escapades; I would gladly pay for some cultural elitism.

Fourth, blaming Hollywood for our poor reputation overseas is like blaming Newsweek for causing riots it didn't cause for an article it published which was at first false, but later turned out to be true…oh never mind.

Fifth, Oliver Stone is a favorite target for conservatives as he is in this editorial. Oliver Stone makes movies which are interpretations of Oliver Stone's world. Platoon was a reportage of every event that happened to the military over the course of the Vietnam War. More importantly, Oliver Stone proved in Alexander that gay officers can be just as goofy as our straight ones.

Six, Hollywood has no obligation but to make profits for Hollywood. Hollywood shouldn't be a tool in someone's information warfare campaign or start making propaganda films. If you want to watch mind numbing propaganda, then watch Fox News for awhile.

Finally, I don't feel Hollywood is ready to address the war in Iraq, because it is not easily packaged for consumption. It is hard to find a balance to where one is accused of making propaganda or at the opposite extreme - be accused of unfairly criticizing our military. It is easier for Hollywood and the so-called liberal media to broadcast shows about super nannies and report on runaway brides.

Essay: Writing emails for old people

I love and hate writing emails for other people, especially my bosses and their bosses. If you haven’t figured out by now, most bosses are baby boomers. That means that they refer to the television looking box on their desks as the “email machine”. When an important email or letter has to be written it is often delegated to the first person in the hierarchy who was born after 1965 – that is usually me.

The emails that I write aren’t the usual, “Hey, come see me” emails. I am the guy that is tasked to come up a “we want your money” email or in other words, submit a proposal to justify the purchase of said item to meet the critical mission requirements of the organization.

Some of my least favorite challenges are when my boss makes “happy to glad” changes. I mean he literally changes the word “happy” to “glad”. I also dislike when there is another layer of review in the staffing process. Then, you get in an endless do-loop between two irreconcilable writing styles. Finally, I hate to be coerced into writing buzz words that don’t meaning anything, but convey a fake sense of expertise to the uninformed. Every few years, there are new words which enter the lexicon of the high and mighty. Words like “paradigm” were popular, now we try to “leverage” everything into our “overarching” objectives.

The process of adapting one’s own writing style to another is my favorite challenge. I really enjoy myself when I get to the point where my boss can just cut and paste from the “tear line” and forward my creativity as his own.

I am truly satisfied when another co-worker quotes an email or letter from the boss to me as policy. I just give them a big s*** eating grin knowing that I created that and it is my own little secret.

LTTE: On the UN Again

I want to address two editorials, one published on September 14th, “Reform United Nations” and “Bad Times for the U.N.” published on September 16th. Both editorials are similar in tone. The United Nations needs reform based on the Paul Volcker’s report and the so called Oil for Food Scandal. Yes, the United Nations needs reform. However, there are other reform plans than one hears of on conservative news outlets like Fox News. I would ask readers to visit http://un.org to see attempts to achieve the goals of the Millennium Project to end world hunger and other proposals to better democratize the General Assembly and the Security Council. I would also recommend that subscribers go to http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm#6 to read the underreported article on the Oil for Food scandal. Originally published in Harper’s Magazine in December 2004, the article implicated the United States and the United Kingdom who provided oversight of the project as members of the Security Council.

LTTE: On the UN

I would like to address the editorial, published on November 17th, “Reject World Summit Idea”. The editorial first published by the San Diego Union-Tribune and then picked up by The Lawton Constitution calls for the rejection of a proposal at this week’s UN World Summit on the Information Society. The proposal calls for the ending of the unilateral control that the United States has on internet domain names. I disagree with the argument on two issues. First, the proposal by UN officials is reasoned since two UN organizations: The Universal Postal Unions and the International Civil Aeronautics Organization already regulate and establish standards for mail and air traffic control, why not internet domains. My second issue with the editorial is that it goes into “tin foil hat wearing land” when the author starts talking about UN internet taxes and suggests that we tell other countries and the United Nations to set up their own “internets”. First, the urban legend about UN internet taxes has been floating around the said internet on wing nut websites for years. I am surprised that The Constitution would even address such nonsense. The final point is that there is only one internet. You cannot have multiple internets and to suggest that we have an American’s only internet is foolish and irresponsible. This is what happens when you eat too many freedom fries and drink lots of Kool-Aid.

LTTE: Liberal Treachery

I want to address the letter, “Liberal treachery displayed”, published on Wednesday, September 14th. The author stated, “if the USA had to put up with the liberal treachery during World War II that we have to endure today, we would all be speaking German and Japanese instead of English”. I would like to remind the author that the President of the United States during World War II was a liberal democrat. So, it was “liberal treachery” which resulted in a formal declaration of war against a country that actually attacked us. It was “liberal treachery” which enabled the United States to form a serious coalition of nations to defeat fascism. It was “liberal treachery” that planned several conferences with our allies and had a plan for post combat operations. It was “liberal treachery” that allowed the United States to help form the United Nations after the war. It was also “liberal treachery” that allowed Eleanor Roosevelt to be the first UN Ambassador for the Human Rights Commission and who authored the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Back then, liking the UN was a prerequisite to working there. I can sure go for a big hot bowl of “liberal treachery” right now; oh, and I will pass on the ‘freedom fries”.

LTTE: Wal-Mart: A Friend of the Poor

I would like to address the editorial, published on December 2nd, “The Poor’s Best Pal”. The editorial first published by the San Diego Union-Tribune and then picked up by The Lawton Constitution asserts that Wal-Mart’s low prices and low wages are somehow a benefit to poor people. I didn’t know that the Lawton Constitution was in the business of promoting corporate propaganda. Once again we have a corporate puppet trying to convince working people that low wages are good for them. Let’s take a look at our own town. Remember when we had grocery stores like Herbs and Homeland. Remember when we had small stores on 52nd street near Atwoods. Remember when there were open stores in the shopping center near Gore Boulevard and Fort Sill Boulevard. All we have now is a bunch of boarded up shops and dollar stores. So, during this Christmas season, when you are buying a bunch of cheap junk from China at low prices, ask yourself these questions. Why did Wal-Mart close a store in Canada when its own employees voted to join a union? Why did Wal-Mart close down its own butcher shops when employees in Texas voted to join a union? Why is Wal-Mart a defendant in one of the largest gender discrimination suits in history? Why is it that the four of the top ten richest people in the world who own Wal-Mart pay the lowest wages? Why is it that the Transportation Bill that passed this summer allotted money to pay for a $35 million road to be built up to the Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas? Wal-Mart is a friend of the poor, just like wolves are friends of chickens.

LTTE: Pat Buchanan, Jack Bauer, and other fictional characters

I would like to address Pat Buchanan’s editorial, published on January 24th, “What would take-no-prisoners Jack Bauer do”. Breaking from the conservative tradition of attacking fictional characters (Sponge Bob, the Tele-Tubbies, and Murphy Brown), Pat Buchanan makes a daring move and supports a fictional character. This one is the hero, Jack Bauer, of the fear mongering action series “24”, which airs on Fox. I have to be fair and say that “24” is one of the few shows on the Fox network that wasn’t stolen from another network, like the nanny show, the boxing show, or the mom swapping show. But on the other hand, if “24” was a good show, Fox would have cancelled it after one or two seasons like “Dark Angel” and “Firefly”. It is not only Buchanan’s logic of siding with a work of fiction to justify torture that bothers me, it is the fact that he openly admits: “The left may be right on the law, but the people seem to be standing by Bush”. He still supports going around the rule of law to fight terrorism. I don’t know which people he is talking about, but I suggest that Buchanan take a look at some recent opinion polls. Next, he quotes a German general from World War One, which will surely endear him to no one. Finally, Buchanan cites all the times that our government has violated civil liberties during times of war to justify what is going on now. He, however, doesn’t say that each time the Supreme Court or Congress corrected itself. The Supreme Court did rule after the Civil War that habeas corpus cannot be suspended if the civil courts are still in operation. Eugene Debs was released from prison by Republican President Warren Harding. In fact, Debs ran as Socialist presidential candidate from prison and got 3.4% of the vote, which is 3.4% more than Buchanan got in 2000. The Japanese, who were interned in World War II, later received an apology and reparations from the government. Yes, President Truman did order the dropping of atomics bombs on Japan. I am not sure what law it did break at the time, but many people today still question that action. My advice to Pat Buchanan: if you want to make an argument, stay away from the fictional characters, German generals, and read a history book.

LTTE: Why torture is illegal

Walter Williams is off the mark. His editorial published on July 30th, "Will we Americans defend ourselves?" stated that by whining about the torture of prisoners we are somehow preventing the gathering of intelligence that might stop a future terrorist attack. He forgot that we live in a democracy and should be held to a higher standard. We must respect principles such as habeas corpus, due process, and respect for our own and international law, and at the same time, we must fight the global struggle against violent extremism. The outrage against torture has three parts. First, you cannot detain a person without charging them with a crime. Second, the government must give the defendant due process after he is charge with a crime. Finally, we are supposed to be the good guys - good guys don't torture prisoners. If you don't believe me, read the Constitution, the 5th and 6th Amendments, the Geneva Convention, Title 18, USC, Section 4000, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Magna Charta.

LTTE: The War on Christmas

As I predicted in another letter to the editor, the annual War on Christmas has begun again. This is the first war fought with just one side. The one side is made up of all you good people who live in your small universe of cable news channels and AM radio. I will admit that in this one sided war, Christmas is winning. Remember back 1500 years ago when Christmas was just another cheap attempt by the early Christian church to co-opt local pagan celebrations into the new liturgical calendar. Let's make up a holiday with Christ's name in it. Then, let's celebrate his birthday at the same time of the year as Yule, the Winter Solstice, and the Saturnalia. Well, that cheap attempt paid off, the Christian Church grew when all the pagans realized that they could still decorate pine trees, dress up in red velvet suits, and prance around with elves. Oliver Cromwell and the like-minded Puritans put a damper on Christmas when they stripped out all the pagan stuff. Christmas was a real Christian holyday. As a result, Oliver Cromwell was hung, drawn, and quartered after he died of malaria and the Puritans were kicked out England. As we all know, the Puritans moved to America, invented Thanksgiving, and the American tradition of minding other people's business. We then go to the early 19th century. Charles Dickens revived Christmas with stories of ghosts scaring old businessmen into buying turkey dinners for poor people. If you don't know what I mean, watch any show on TV Land this month for a re-telling of "A Christmas Carol". I like the "What's Happening" version. In recent times, Christmas has made great gains in its offensive. We could always count on the usual Christmas specials every year like Charlie Brown, the Grinch, and Rudolph. Now, the ABC Family Channel has the 25 days of Christmas and that's just one channel. I even hear that Showtime is making an "L Word" Christmas special. They're even casting for Claymation lesbians. The Christmas shopping season used to start on the first day after Thanksgiving now it starts after Halloween. The only real war on Christmas is the way that corporate America is turning it into a fourth quarter end of the fiscal year liquidation blow out sale. If you want to fight someone over Christmas, go ask the CEOs, not the left wing conspiracy. I assure all of you as a double secret member of the left wing conspiracy and several others, the war on Christmas is not on our agenda. It is not even part of our secret UN plan to take over the internet and buy all the gold. Even my contacts in the Illuminati have no agenda against Christmas. But when Christmas stops making a profit, you better watch your back. God bless us, everyone!

LTTE: Liberalism is geatest threat to America (sarcasm)

I fully concur with the writer whose letter stated that liberalism was the greatest threat to America. Good Americans should blindly follow the government. Every American has a right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press as long as you don't ask questions and disagree with any elected official. In World War II, those evil liberal Quaker pacifists in the American Friends Service Committee questioned some American policies. It is a miracle that the Allies won by dropping two atomic bombs and the AFSC is even a footnote in a history book. True dissent is measured in the number of tacky ribbon magnets and Jesus fish on the back of your SUV or pickup truck. Due process and the rights of the accused are just for liberal pinko shows like "Law and Order". Liberals have to realize that we will lose the "War on Christmas" if we have to go through the hassle of getting warrants and charging people with crimes. Remember the liberal media which is owned by five corporations, one crazy Australian, and the Reverend Sun Yung Moon is against the principles of free market capitalism and would never chase ratings. The liberal media is out to destroy America. Now, we have the growing threat of China. All those evil liberals who own the banks shouldn't be selling all those bonds to China. All those evil liberals who own the cigarette and telephone companies shouldn't be expanding their markets in China. Those evil rich liberals headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, shouldn't have the gall to sell all that Chinese junk at every day low prices, while their father is rolling over in his grave. Let me quote the Book of Hippocriticus, and show what our founding fathers said, "Ye, monger the fear of gay people and hatred of Arab people, so that ye shall justify ye stupid policies." Now go find a dictionary and look up the word "sarcasm", it is under the letter "s".

LTTE: Inteliigent Design

I would like to respond to Pat Buchanan's editorial, "Banning 'intelligent design' will make it popular", published in The Lawton Constitution on December 30, 2005. Buchanan believes that recent court rulings which banned the use of intelligent design in certain school districts will make it more popular. He goes on to quote another author, "there is no better way to make kids curious about 'intelligent design than to have some Neanderthal forbid it being mentioned in biology class." Well, if we use Buchanan's forbidden fruit method to tempt our children into learning a pseudoscience then we must applaud conservatives for integrating the creation story into the teaching process. Second, if Buchanan thinks this method will work, why do conservatives insist in sticking their nose in everybody's business? They try to censor or ban television shows, music, video games, books, and movies. Spongebob is even more popular now since Dr. James Dobson outed him this past year. I also like Buchanan's use of the word "Neanderthal". For Buchanan and other conservatives, the Neanderthal is a mythical creature that isn't part of humankind's evolution. For conservatives, Neanderthals never existed, but elves live at the North Pole, welfare queens live in the projects, and fairies live on Castro Street in San Francisco. Buchanan's argument is that Darwinism, or as it is known by people who live in the 21st Century, the theory of evolution, cannot explain all natural phenomena. That is why it is still a theory, but it the best one we have. As he suggests, if we can't explain it, then let's say that some intelligent life form created the universe and be done with it. That belief goes against the whole purpose of science - ask questions. Since liberalism and scientific thought are dead, we can all happily march into the 12th century with conservative pseudoscience, economic policies that favor the rich, and faith based initiatives.

LTTE: Dead End Jobs called Low Wage Jobs

I would like to address the editorial written by Walter Williams and published on December 3rd, “Dead-end jobs called low-wage jobs”. My agreement with Williams ends after the headline. It seems that the right wing pundits are making their rounds with another bogus argument that low wage jobs are good for poor people. Next week, it will be the yearly "Liberals attack on Christmas" editorial to justify shoving Christianity down everyone's' throats followed by the yearly "Why America is a republic not a democracy" editorial to justify invasions of privacy and the removal of civil liberties. There is so much wrong with this editorial. Well, at least he is not spewing lies and right wing vitriol like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan. First, you cannot say that being a professor is a dead-end. I don't see a lot of McDonalds' employees with nationally syndicated editorials. Next, he gives the Horatio Alger argument that shows that Jay Leno worked at McDonalds and now he hosts "The Tonight Show". That American Dream crap died in the early 1900s. That is why we had a subsequent Progressive Era followed by the birth of a strong labor movement. He then states that "some demagogues charge that jobs at Wal-Mart and McDonalds only pay the minimum wage". Demagogue is a fancy name for people who actually work at these places. The average probably does come to higher than the minimum wage. When you average out the wealth of the four heirs to Wal-Mart, who are four of the richest billionaires in the world, with what employees make at Wal-Mart, it does add up to about six dollars an hour. Finally, he writes that "40 percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes of $60,000 or higher". That's true, when dad works at McDonalds and Wal-Mart, and mom works at McDonalds and Wal-Mart, and you have grandma and grandpa working as greeters at Wal-Mart, then the total household income might be $60,000. The next time you are buying Kool-Aid or super-sizing your Freedom Fries, remember to thank the employees who have to work at these places.

LTTE: Democratic Party hjacked by liberals

I would like to address the letter to the editor published on 8 July 2005 titled, "Democratic Party hijacked by liberals". I have three major concerns with the statements made by the author.

First, conservatives often make the misinformed assertion that liberalism, socialism, and communism are one and the same political philosophies. However, the truth is often opposite the surreal viewpoint of the average talk radio listener and Fox News viewer. Liberalism believes in civil liberties and some government management of the market system for the public good. The basic meaning of socialism is that the government controls all the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Socialism rose out of the French Revolution and spread throughout Europe in many divergent paths. As opposed to modern liberalism which came to prominence in the Depression Era. Communism as most know it as Soviet style Marxist-Leninism was influenced from but not exactly equal to Karl Marx's version of socialism.

Most Americans would be surprised to know that Tony Blair, our staunchest ally in the Global War on Terrorism, is a member of the Labor Party, one of the most prominent members of the Socialist International. And the next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you can thank the author, Francis Bellamy, a socialist and a minister. It seems that conservatives will attack any philosophy which wants the government to help poor people. I guess it upsets their corporate and religious masters.

My second concern is that Senator Zell Miller is representative of all Democrats and reflects their tradition. Liberals haven't recently hijacked the party. If you take a look at the resulting programs from the Democratic administrations of the last century, you will realize that they are very liberal and still popular with the American people. Programs and laws like child labor laws, the forty-hour work week, the minimum wage, social security, the GI Bill, the Peace Corps, Civil Rights legislation, and Headstart are helping average people today. I do give credit to President Nixon for creating the EPA and affirmative action.

My final concern is the declaration that there are dozens of documented connections between al-Qaida and Iraq, Prior to our Operations Iraqi Freedom there wasn't one undocumented connection between the attack on September 11th and Saddam Hussein.