Posted on May 7 at 10:12 p.m.
BaneMaier,
It is certainly understandable wanting a third party candidate over one from the major parties. They offer fresh ideas and are very attractive to those who feel disillusioned about the current state of affairs.
The fact of the matter is, though, that voting for a third party candidate has no other effect than deciding which major party candidate will win in the general election. You scoff at politics as being sludge in the system, but the truth is that no policy, however good, will get passed without the proper political support. A major problem the Democratic party has faced for the past four years is a wrench in the cogs in the form of President Bush. Remember, too, that votes for the war were based on false information provided by Republicans.
As for wanting a small federal government, this is pie-in-the-sky speak that has no basis in reality. If government is effectively regulated as powerless, the you will see new powers emerge in the form of corporations or the like. What we need, rather, is a strong central government elected by the general populous.
What the Democratic party offers is more responsibility both in international relations and in domestic policy. Democrats also support individual rights much more so than the Republican party. The state of affairs in Iraq and the middle east is, unfortunately, much more complicated than just pulling out. Though it may not be possible to leave in a way that is positive on the whole, we will still need to put forth an effort to ensure some stability in the country.
BaneMaier, you are well-versed, so I hope you can apply your intelligence to the implications of voting for a third party candidate in the general election. One of the greatest rights we have in this country is freedom of speech, and I think you have a valuable opinion. I also support the spirit behind much of what you say, but the reality of the situation drives me to see the Democratic party as the best option for ensuring the health of the country in which we live. I hope that by the time the general election rolls around, you will find that the likely Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, provides the best option for President of the United States of America.
Posted on May 3 at 10:41 a.m.
Unfortunately, a lot of creationists feel that the theory of evolution is a direct attack on their beliefs and specifically the belief system put forth in the book of Genesis. When analyzing the words of the bible, we cannot think that descriptions given are entirely literal. The old testament was written in a time much more primitive than our own, and God would have known this when disseminating knowledge of the world to the human race at the time. God would have known that ideas of evolution, microprocessors, and DNA would have eluded even the most inquisitive, open-minded people of the time.
The world has been laid out before us to study and draw inferences from, so trying to debunk evolution actually goes against our purpose on this planet. Intelligent Design is admittedly a clever way to disguise what is really a reactionary belief held by those who are unwilling to admit that current belief systems may not be adequate. Anyway, what's more intelligent, the creation of humans in seven literal days or a beautifully orchestrated evolution spanning billions of years?
On Letter: Intelligent design documentary fails to find science in concept
Posted on May 8 at 11:46 a.m.
Isn't it called Larryville because of Larry Brown? If that's the case, then, yes, we should rename the town "William" with the popular nickname being Billsville, right?
On Bill Self deserving of his own street?