First off, the Bible is a wonderful book that assures us that all humanity began in an enchanted garden called Eden. God created this garden for man, and there was a talking snake and a magic tree that gave us knowledge, and there was a white rabbit with a large pocket watch. We were not created by evolution as you nonbelievers think.
Even though the "flood" happened in Asia, it probably caused the Grand Canyon erosion, just like the Park Service gift-shop book says ("Creating a Ruckus," Currents, Jan. 18). So lay off!
When you die, you are going to hell, which is below the Earth. We, on the other hand, will go to heaven, which is located on a firmament in the sky (that would be "up" above Earth). Heaven is a wonderful place with streets paved with gold. But I would not recommend it for virgins, as I've heard that virgins are given to Islamic suicide bombers there.
Please apologize to all of us who hold these values precious and show us more respect in the future.
These examples are the beginning of a long list of inconsistencies between the Bible and what we hold as common knowledge. If the Bible is wrong on these points, why is the age of the Earth a point of debate? Would the same people argue the sun, moon and stars are in the dome of sky that covers the flat Earth and separates the waters above from the waters below?
The Bible is not science. At its best, it provides some moral guidance. At its worst, it ... provides some moral guidance. If everyone just focused on the Golden Rule part, then the Bible really could contribute to the salvation of humanity. But it still wouldn't give the Bible significance in determining how the world and life began.
If there is a God, and God created the world and everything in it, he/she/it didn't do it the way it is described in Genesis. This is true, because everything we know and everything we can determine using the gifts God gave us say otherwise. It doesn't make any sense that God's truth wouldn't be able to stand up to the scientific scrutiny of his own creation. If it was truth from God, it should be undeniable to any one of his creation.
The good news is this doesn't mean you have to stop practicing your religion. Lucky for you, you live in a country where church and state are kept separate. I think.
In my analysis, I would go further in explaining what could be done. Do not count on Raytheon, the corporation itself or its executives to change. Change must come from below. First, Raytheon employees need to confront the reality of military-industrial-complex-inspired imperialistic evil. Next, they must defy corporate authority, denounce war profiteering and take over the factory. Finally, they must convert all technology so it will be used for peaceful purposes only.
Of course, the general public must support them and protest any police repression in response to their action. If willing, Raytheon employees have the power to rid Tucson of this disgrace.
But Tom, your analysis is diluted with a most amazing array of stereotypes. "The average liberal today turns his nose up at labor?" The average liberal "guy works at a computer?" Funny, then, how my own friends in the high-tech computer industry (guys and gals included) tend to lean right. Funny how many of my friends in the working-class trades (including union members who rarely have time to mess with computers) are social and economic liberals.
Further, you suggest that "liberalism" now embraces "every crackpot scheme that comes down the pike." Well, there are crackpot schemes that have been embraced by people of all sorts of ideological persuasions. How about the crackpot scheme that invading Iraq could stabilize the Middle East and reduce extremist threats to the United States? Or the crackpot scheme that suspending habeas corpus can somehow make us safer? It seems that crackpot schemes have been backed by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.
Tom, instead of brandishing ideological stereotypes in an attempt to provoke angry responses (like this one, perhaps), stick to more enlightened discourse. A guest-worker program is a bad idea, because it would reinforce class differences, enrich an elite cadre of the wealthy and perpetuate the culture of dependency between the United States and Latin America. A better approach would acknowledge the history of dependent development, labor exploitation and the acceptance of corporate privilege across the border, and use this as a basis for a sensible labor policy.
If you want to debate these issues, then do so. But please--don't resort to name-calling and labeling as a rhetorical device.
More than a pop cliché, Lightfoot was our collective inner vagabond, crisscrossing the windswept prairie of experience back in the day when that meant something--everything, in fact.
At $40 a pop, I'll pass, though. Maybe I'll run into him some gray day, haggard and hungover, in some departure lounge taking cover from the early morning rain.
Since the 1980s, the media has mediated graffiti and absorbed it. The readers saw the official reclaiming the unofficial. Graffiti, the act of anti-media response, becomes art in the media, and that can make an editor appear irresponsible ("Month in Review," Editor's Note, Feb. 1, and "Tagging Tales," Jan. 4).