[Re: The Radford Files, “Logic 101,” April 10-16] This was one of the best articles I've read in the Alibi. I would like to apply Radford's logic to another subject near and dear to most Americans: President Bush. His far-right, conservative, extremist constituency voted him into office, at least the second time, thinking he would help outlaw abortion. It's ironic that he will not accomplish this, but instead be directly responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands.
Most of the world hates America and specifically Bush. In fact, most Americans despise Bush and all his shrubs. We and the world will be paying for this person's blunders. My point is that religious fanatics make the same stupid decisions when they try to get involved in any matters requiring logic. Recall that witches float and others sink. You may drown, but you'll be remembered as being innocent.
I'm confused by the call for tougher border security between the U.S. and Mexico. Is it not true that America has been uniquely blessed by God? It must be, since I hear it proclaimed in songs, sermons and political speeches. If America is uniquely blessed by God, then Americans must be uniquely blessed by God. This means that God must not care for people of other countries nearly as much as he does for Americans. (I have actually heard some American religious leaders ponder whether simply being American qualifies one for Heaven, or if one must be both American and Christian.) Therefore, crossing the border from Mexico into the United States should be viewed as a sacred act by people attempting to "get right with God." Creating barriers for these people must, then, be a sin. Are conservative Christian Americans losing favor with God by making it more difficult for Mexicans to enter the U.S.?
[Re: Newscity, “An Ailing System,” April 10-16] I don't even need to read Part 2. Until the public understands the downside of illegal aliens and Mexican mothers crossing into the U.S. for the express purpose of birthing a child here, you better get used to less and less benefits. People who don't deserve and haven't contributed are consuming vast resources. Maybe Maria Rickert should chat with that idiot who writes "¡Ask a Mexican!"
It’s not about changing lightbulbs anymore!
When Al Gore's and Leonardo DiCaprio’s dramatic documentaries alerted us to the devastating impacts of global warming, many people went through the ritual of switching from incandescent lightbulbs to the compact fluorescent variety. Unfortunately, in the case of global warming, good intentions and switching lightbulbs are not good enough.
The most powerful individual lifestyle solution was suggested in a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The report found that meat production accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. That’s more than automobiles!
Carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is emitted by burning forests to create animal pastures and by the combustion of fossil fuels to operate farm machinery, trucks, refrigeration equipment, factory farms and slaughterhouses. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are released from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools.
Moreover, animal agriculture contributes more pollutants to our waterways than all other human activities combined. Principal sources are animal wastes, soil particles, minerals, crop debris, fertilizers and pesticides from feed croplands. It is also the driving force in worldwide deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction.
The annual observance of Earth Day provides an excellent opportunity for every one of us to help save our planet by dropping animal products from our diet. More details are available at www.CoolYourDiet.org.
[Re: Ortiz y Pino, “The Sane Rev. Wright,” April 10-16] The idea that America is not the shining beacon of morality in the world community is definitely discomforting to many Americans, and I think that's what interests the Clinton team most about this controversy. O8ama met this discomfort head-on with his speech in an attempt, not to ease that discomfort, but to propagate it. To thrust an honest (and for the first time in the new millenium, unifying) discourse into the dinner-table conversations of Middle America was the point. It seems that most of the buzz surrounding this bold move comes back around to experiential differences between individuals of color in American society and the (perceived) dominant group: racism and discrimination.
The fact that the media tends to shy away from mature debate and instead relies on wild accusations and out-of-context sound clips lends to public complacency. Then when an honest and vulnerable examination of the experiences of people of color in America finally makes it to the mainstage, the public seems to have these hypersensitive reactions. It's not the fault of the citizens; the fault lies on the public officials and media moguls who refuse to engage in an uncomfortable conversation involving very real disparities. Rev. Wright's rhetoric is hard to swallow, but I think if Americans took the time to chew on it some more, the controversy would dissipate.
+1 to O8ama.
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.