Letters for Friday — October 07, 2005

• About Harriet Miers: We need more information

About Harriet Miers: We need more information

President Bush has refused to release any documents from Miers’ time in

the White House, and claimed he could not “recall” any conversations

with Miers about abortion over 10 years of friendship and legal service.

The people deserve the facts.

It’s remarkable how, even after collecting nearly everything that’s

publicly available, Miers’ position on major constitutional questions

and her qualifications to be a judge are still almost completely

unknown. What is clear is the deep personal and professional connection

shared by Harriet Miers and George W. Bush.

Here’s what some MoveOn members have uncovered about their long


From David, of Howell, Mich.:

When Miers was Bush’s appointee to head the Texas State Lottery

Commission, the lottery was accused by a former director of awarding

multi-million dollar nobid contracts to a technology firm represented by

former Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes. Barnes has since said he helped

Bush escape active duty in Vietnam, and the lottery director alleged

that Barnes demanded, (and under Miers received) the lucrative public

contracts to keep quiet about Bush’s military service.

From Paula, of San Mateo, CA

As Governor, Bush signed a law blocking Texas consumers from collecting

a $6 billion dollar judgment against car dealers for predatory lending

and keeping secret kickbacks. The law firm Miers headed represented the

auto dealers.

From Nancy, of Austin, Texas

Miers was hired as legal counsel on both Bush’s gubernatorial campaigns.

Among other things, her research was used to persuade a local judge to

excuse then Governor Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have

forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. He

was then able to keep his arrest secret until late in the 2000

presidential campaign.

From Stephen, of Birmingham, Ala.

Miers’s personal friendship and allegiance to Bush has been cited for

years in connection with her promotions, including to her highest post

of White House Counsel.

Cronyism on the Supreme Court is a serious threat to our democracy. In

fact Alexander Hamilton specifically argued that the Senate should be

empowered to confirm or reject judicial nominees in part to prevent the

President from using the Court to reward friends and political allies.

The call to reject cronyism and secrecy is bipartisan. As conservative

columnist George F. Will put it today, “The president’s ‘argument’ for

(Miers) amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several

reasons.” We may have different reasons not to take Bush at his word,

but we can all agree on the need for more information.

  • Steven Ruddell

Challenge still not answered

Dr. Amy Brock responded to my letter in The Garden Island with what she

calls an example of increase information within a species. She also

commented that “proponents of intelligent design have never published

supporting research in any peer-review scientific journal”.

First of all, Dr. Brock, you know as well as I that intelligent design

supporting research is routinely censored from any peer review

scientific journals like the Scientific American. Secondly, duplication

of genes is not an example of new increase information within a kind. No

new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of already

existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book

to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative

than the proper book. As well, the redundant gene copy is no more

susceptible to mutations than its original strand. And as we have

mentioned in the past, point mutations result in a loss of information

not a gain in information. Your statements are not only a fairytale

hypothesis that you speak as a fact, but they also violate the known and

proven mathematical laws of probability and the law of entropy to

mention just a few. As well, for hemoglobin to evolve is far more

complex than Dr. Brock or Scientific American imply. The alpha and beta

chains are encoded on genes of different chromosomes, so they are

expressed independently. This expression must be controlled precisely;

otherwise various types of anemia result. Also there is an essential

“chaperone” protein to stabilize the alpha chain and bring it to the

beta chain. This “chaperone” protein governs the essential folding of

other proteins. How did the the first proteins fold without

“chaperone” proteins? And since the “chaperone” proteins are

themselves complex proteins, how did they fold?

No, Dr. Brock, you still have not given me one example of new increased

information within a kind.

Everyone agrees that natural selection takes place but that is not an

example of evolution.

The evolutionary theory violates known and proven laws. Like the laws of

chemistry, the mathematical laws of probability, and the laws of

physics, most notably but not limited to the second law of

thermodynamics. Why do the evolutionary scientists choose to ignore

these known and proven laws?

I think Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, “Billions and

Billions of Demons” in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, on

page 31 says it best, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that

are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real

struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of

science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in

spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of

health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community

for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment,

a commitment to materialism.”

  • Dr. Peter R. Saker

Miers is not qualified

There isn’t a lot of information on Ms. Miers because she has never been

a judge nor as a lawyer, tried cases in the Supreme Court arena. This

position is over her head. She may be a nice lady, a church-going

Christian and a friend of Geo W. Bush. Bottom line, she does not qualify

for the magnitude of a lifetime position as a Supreme Court judge.

She may have done well as personal lawyer and loyal friend to George W.

Bush. So ask Mr. Bush about what she has done for him and their personal

relationship, if she’s so qualified. He won’t answer the personal

questions because he doesn’t have to! Mr. Bush just wants us to take his

word about Ms. Harriet Miers. No, thank you. I’m tired of turning the

other cheek to this president and his administration. Aloha.

  • Les Gale

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, send us an email.