• Focus on Kaua‘i politics
• Good, great and scoundrels in all parties
• Debate should continue
• Why eat their food?
Focus on Kaua‘i politics
It’s amazing how some people become so engrossed in their own perspective the facts seem to disappear. I feel an extreme amount of pity for individuals who have an orgasmic experience when they participate in immature, unintelligent, and hateful name-calling. Not even Kaua‘i can cure the mental ailments that result from such a perspective.
The most exhaustive poll of Iraq citizens to date came out today, and what to our surprise, the Iraqi people are in line with what President Bush has been saying all along. Nearly 70% of them are feeling positive about their future. Their lives are improving at a remarkable rate. Time will tell what history will record about our President and his administration. The book is only halfway written and the ending is unknowable. My glass is half full.
My advice to those underestimating the importance and strategy of the War on Terror is to concentrate on the politics of Kaua‘i. One can get more facts and even turn a negative mind set to effect a positive impact. Kauaians need to come together and turn our focus to those currently leading this island to a condition one can only experience in over-developed, traffic congested, nightmare metropolises. Our island is fast becoming a quality-of-life challenge because of the politicians leading us (and suing us). Every resort approved and developed leads this fragile island another step closer to becoming Maui 2.
We don’t have much time to stop this trend! To maintain the Kaua‘i we all know depends on getting rid of these clowns. All of them! Where is Ms. Dux when we need her? I will never join her campaign to deny the existence of a God, or to her impressive easy chair quarterbacking of the War on Terror and current administration. If only she could take her talents and put them to use on Kaua‘i, we would all be better off. I would gladly join her Kaua‘i “Vote the Bums Out” campaign as soon as she starts one.
- Gordon Oswald
Good, great and scoundrels in all parties
In her most recent forum letter Bette-jo Dux begins with her usual diatribe against the Bush Administration. Vice-president Dick Cheney is the recipient of her viciousness this time. She then goes on to say that she hopes that the democrats who are honest and decent people will go after those rodents.
This would imply to the reader that she thinks that Republicans are just the opposite of honest and decent, i.e. dishonest and decadent. Well, I have lived through many presidents beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I have learned that each party has its share of good people, its share of great people and its share of scoundrels. No political party has a lock on honesty and decency.
She finishes her letter by informing the reader that she doesn’t want anyone to come back with the fact that President Clinton lied about his sexual affair. Bettejo doesn’t really get it. Lying to the public is one thing but lying to a grand jury is quite something else. President Clinton was an attorney and should have known better. The grand jury is one of the basic foundations of our legal system and President Clinton showed no respect for their investigation. President Clinton was later disbarred for those actions.
- Paul Daffinrud
Do your own GMO research
I am outraged and saddened by the Dec. 9 pro GMO propaganda. It is, in my opinion, a disgrace to our community’s collective conscience. All of these inflated positives far under-weigh the facts about GMOs.
In short, the scientists have utilized the cell nucleus-penetrating ability of the E-coli virus to splice animal and human DNA into our food! This includes and is not limited to jellyfish in corn, and fish in tomatoes. In addition to this, labels are not required on said produce or anything produced from it.
I encourage anyone to do their own research.
- Lauren Shaw
Debate should continue
Mr. Clark, thank you for your well-written response. I read that article in The New York Times when it first came out. In fact, I think I agree with you. The eye is remarkable evidence of microevolution, which is NOT a theory because, like Daniel Dennett pointed out, there is sufficient evidence of it occurring. However, the same can not be said of macroevolution (net change over a prolonged period of time). If the eye evolved into, say, an asparagus, I would definitely have a few questions.
Intelligent Design and macroevolution are identical in that they are not based on “verifiable scientific evidence” and neither have been observed or reproduced. Of course, I’d be more than interested in the enormous volume of scientific evidence and data that you have.
There is a lot of “evidence” used in textbooks and by the public (including our presidents). Some people might cite the “peppered moths” by Kettlewell. In the forward of the 1971 edition of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”, biologist L. Harrison Matthews F.R.S agreed that it was not evidence of macroevolution, but rather merely “adaptation” (or microevolution). Darwin’s Galapagos finches? With the finches’ fluctuations around the mean, it can hardly be supportive of the case for macroevolution. Macroevolution is supposed to be about long-term, directional change.
This forum is not an efficient method of debate, it takes too long! I’d love to hear your thoughts at email@example.com. There is sufficient evidence that both ID and evolution have problems and do not offer all the answers. Hence my proposal that you teach both from a logical perspective and let the students decide for themselves.
- Josh Duvauchelle, 18
Why eat their food?
In response to the editorial, Monsanto’s ‘promise of healthier food,’ from their headquarters in St. Louis:
Choosing not to eat GMO plants is not fear-based, it comes from common sense, personal research, and choosing instead a balanced diet of food not sprayed or grown with synthetic chemicals.
Many people have been eating this way long before the introduction of GMO foods.
I choose to avoid laboratory-modified foods because:
#1 Bt corn, like that grown by Pioneer across from Kukui Grove, is considered a pesticide, not a food. It is overseen by the EPA instead of the FDA, as other food is. As a plant, it is more of a chemical construct than food product, even though it does enter the food supply as animal feed and corn sweeteners.
#2 Genetic modification of a plant uses a virus to internally spread the synthetic gene sequence throughout the plant.
#3 Gene sequence insertion often uses antibiotic resistance traits to validate the experiment.
#4 Monsanto’s main purpose is to define and patent our common resources. Pure air, water, and food are basic human needs and should be our birthright.
There is no evidence of health risks because there are no long term feeding studies or allergic reaction records. Because GMO crops, like high fructose corn syrup, are regulated as the substantial equivalent to conventional corn syrup, health studies were never required. They are deemed equivalent. Who wrote and recommended that regulation to the FDA? Monsanto executive Michael Taylor.
Corporations have deep legal defense funds. They often break laws for as long as they can get away with it, pay the fines and move on. It is an established business practice in their world.
With Monsanto and DuPont’s track record of global pollution, why would I eat their food?
- Jeri di Pietro