Letters for Wednesday — January 25, 2006

• Assertions are dead wrong

• Who were the original Hawaiians?

• Rude audiences aren’t just found here

• Believes Wright is wrong

• Appreciated ‘long’ response

• Invasion of privacy

Assertions are dead wrong

Peter Antonson’s 1/17 response to Doc Smith is very revealing of Mr. Antonson’s ability to parrot the talking points of moveon.org, dailykos, and the DNC. And, as should be expected, is replete with half-truths, glaring inaccuracies, and of course, some outright falsehoods. The letter also reveals the typical arrogance of the left, who accuse others of exactly what it is that they themselves are most guilty: defining how the rest of us should think.

Antonson is dead wrong in his assertion that “no one is ‘for’abortion” … Planned Parenthood most certainly is … or illegal immigration … MALDEF and LaRaza most certainly are, and these organizations support – and get support from – Mr. Antonson’s party.

The rest of Antonson’s laundry list of socialistic concerns are too numerous to address in depth in the space allowed. Suffice to say that his concerns are without a basis in actual fact, and illustrate a rather paranoidal mindset, which seems to be the norm for those who share his ideology.

Best of all, Antonson’s letter is a classic example of why his party has been steadily losing elections and power for more than 25 years. His party is devoid of any positive agenda, or new proposals, to deal with the concerns that the majority of Americans share. Just the same old, tired and worn-out rhetoric, and today, the politics of personal destruction, with liberal doses (pun intended) of scandal and hate-mongering, and smear campaigns. His party has put itself in the position where anything bad that happens to the country, from the economy (which is stronger than it ever was under the previous administration), to the war on terrorism (which is succeeding, and which the previous administration never seriously addressed, making 9/11 possible) is good for the party, and gives them the best chance they have to regain their power … which is their No. 1 priority, at the expense of national security and a strong economy.

The desperation of Mr. Antonson’s party is best illustrated by the rabid lunacy of Dean; the hypocritical pontifications of a reprobate and idiotic Kennedy; the hysterical bellowings of an unhinged Al Gore; the sanctimonious and contradictatory claptrap from Kerry, and the fact that the party gets its marching orders from those colossal monuments to utter ignorance like Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Al Franken, and Micheal Moore.

  • Kent D. Gibboney

Who were the original Hawaiians?

I was just reminded that in 1778 British explorer James Cook landed on Kaua’i at Waimea. He was the first European to visit the Hawaiian Islands. I wonder if there were any Hawaiians here in the Islands at that time? Or were the people that were here Samoans or Tahitians or from what is now Micronesia? As a mainlander and caucasian, I wonder if some one can tell me who the original Hawaiians were? And how does one prove that?

Just wondering, ’cause I was born in Arizona, so I’m an Arizonian and my son was born in Texas, so he’s a Texan.

Wouldn’t anyone born in Hawai’i be a Hawaiian ?

  • Gordon “Doc” Smith

Rude audiences aren’t just found here

I want to thank Ada Koene for the letter about the abominable behavior of the audience at the Ernie Watts Quartet performance. I did not attend this performanece, but this is a problem that plagues a great many venues, I fear, and is not a product of Kaua’i provincialism alone.

I was at a performance of Tchaikovsky’s 4th Symphony in San Francisco once, and in between each movement, certain people in the audience would start hacking up a lung. By the time the symphony reached the 4th movement, the hacking was happening in the middle of the movement. Michael Tilson Thomas was so irritated that, while conducting, he reached back with his free hand and was violently shaking his hand at the audience for people to be quiet.

Having performed in bands and orchestras for many years, I felt really terrible for Thomas and the performers. And this was in an urbane, sophisticated city like San Francisco, with one of the world’s premier symphony orchestras. These are patrons that really should know better.

The problem here is that people have just become so incredibly self-centered and rude that they seemingly leave their brain at home whenever they go out. I don’t know how one is ever going to fix this problem. Shame them? They probably don’t care.

It is a sad commentary on society when people can’t even sit quietly and respectfully through a musical performance that they PAID to attend.

  • Michael Mann

Believes Wright is wrong

I would like to respond to the Jan. 21, 2006, GI letter from Mr. George Wright. However, I will not comment on his statement that Bettejo Dux is a self-employed farmer who wrote a response to “William Rusher, a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.” The reason for not commenting on that is because I don’t know what relevant point, if any, Mr. Wright is trying to make.

Mr. Wright goes on to state that “Intelligent design is not about a specific god, or even a god at all … Let me repeat, ID does not teach religion and has nothing to do with religion!”

I beg to differ. A reading of the Decision of the Court from the recent Kitz-miller et al v Dover Area School District trial will show that intelligent design is just another term for creationism. Even the ID’s defense team in the trial was from the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a law firm (and self-described “ministry”) whose stated purpose is “to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.”

A main point in the trial was the TMLC recommended textbook Of Pandas and People (Pandas) which was to be used as a supplement to regular biology textbooks. Early versions of Pandas contained obvious creationist language. In fact, early drafts of the book were called “Creation Biology” and “Biology and Creation.” Later versions, under the Pandas title, showed that the creationists merely changed the terms by replacing “intelligent design” for “creation.” These changes came after the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard ruling in which the Supreme Court ruled that creation science was inherently religious. Such an obvious attempt to dress up “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” did not fool the judge.

Once one recognizes that ID and creationism are the same things, it is easy to see the religious overtones. Visit the creationism web site at www.creationism.org and you will be greeted with bible quotes … specifically Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. The welcome statement for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) at Welcome – Institute for Creation Research says that they “believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity’s defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.”

After all this, I just can’t understand how Mr. Wright can say, with a straight face, that intelligent design “has nothing to do with religion.”

  • Brian Christensen

Appreciated ‘long’ response

Thank you, Michael Mann, for your “long” letter in response to Linda Saker.

Your letter was not too long for me. I don’t know enough astronomy to refute the scientific misunderstandings of Saker, but I was glad someone who is well-read did. I love reading your explanations and plan to read more about astronomy in the near future and perhaps take a course at KCC from the distinguished Marshal Mock. Hmmm! MM and MM? Could that be intelligent design?

  • Paul Kelley

Invasion of privacy

I don’t get it. Our troops are fighting and dying to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. Meanwhile, the federal administration is involved in a repugnant, Orwellian invasion of privacy in its demands for private information from Google. What’s next: a Ministry of Truth or thought control? The feds should retake their grade school civics course.

  • Peter Lucas

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.