Lawsuit Explainer: Insurance Has Limitations

As a former direct care rehabilitation professional and someone who's evaluated disability cases while working for numerous insurance companies in the past, I feel I am qualified to provide at least a partial explanation to this apparently uniformed/ ignorant writer ("Where's Joe Kay's Insurance?" Mailbag, Feb. 10).

Due to the apparent long-term impairments which Joe Kay suffered, he will most likely need long-term, if not life-long, medical care and supervision to address the numerous residual deficits he is suffering from. Typical insurance policies only cover up to a limited amount. Another purpose of the lawsuit would be to recover estimated damages for potential loss of life-time earnings, due to said injury.

The letter writer should have been better informed before making such harsh judgments. Hopefully, he will be lucky enough to never suffer such a devastating tragedy.

Lisa Green

Science Proves Evolution Is Invalid

I am responding to the one-sided article about the validity of creation science, entitled "Evolution Revolution" (Feb. 17).

A few simple scientific facts: Darwin declared that his theory relied on the eventual discovery of transitional fossils, since he had not found any. In 180 years since, thousands of additional animals have been discovered without a single transitory entity. Even evolutionists admit this. Every experiment conducted which has succeeded in altering DNA has only simplified it, creating a weaker entity.

The first two laws of thermodynamics contradict the possibility of evolution. And the excuse that the sun's rays contribute energy to the system is ultimately flawed; radiation increases, not negates, the rate of entropy.

The entire body of evidence which won the Scopes trial has since been proved to be boned from a pig, not a monkey.

Insinuating that there are no logical arguments against evolution is completely false. Both sides of the debate have the same evidence to work with, and an open-minded person who looks carefully at each view will conclude that Young Earth Creationism is more consistently logical.

Max Wojcik

Many Top Scientists Reject Evolution

Deidre Pike's article, "Evolution Revolution" is another example of poor reporting on the debate. Regarding the complex parts of the cell, Pike quotes scientist Karl Flessa as saying, "no one says they formed through chance, only that they formed step by step ... ."

Really? A plethora of evolutionists from Charles Darwin to Richard Dawkins have stated very clearly that evolution is random, purposeless and non-directed. The scientific establishment is determined to make this a science vs. religion debate, and Pike plays right into their hands. Catholics are portrayed as being fine with evolution, while fundamentalist Christians are not. Never mind that a leading design theorist, Michael Behe, is a Catholic who had no qualms with evolution until his work in biology caused him to question it.

By the way, the list of scientists who have signed the dissent from Darwinism statement is now at 350 and growing. Among them is a recent nominee to the National Academy of Sciences and four-time nominee for the Nobel Prize in chemistry, Dr. Henry Schaefer III. Dr. Schaffer has published more than 1,000 articles in peer-reviewed science journals. This is a science vs. science debate.

Dan Folland

Vegetarians Survive Only Because Carnivores Allow Them

Once again, Connie Tuttle doesn't know what the hell she's talking about, what with her recent braying about the wonders of going meatless (Feb 3). I can't believe she can make a living as a "writer."

She writes, "You're likely to live a longer and healthier life." Prove it. I knew a man who lived to be 100 and ate eggs and bacon every day--even the day he died in a one-car traffic accident. Are you going to tell me he would've lived to, say, 110 (assuming no car crash) if he hadn't eaten meat?

Beyond that, just how long and healthy of a life could one expect to live being such a meek, timid soul? It's not only in the "animal kingdom" where the meek plant eaters serve as fodder for the carnivores. It's in humanity as well. It wasn't a bunch of adolescent minds like Tuttle who built this country.

She and her meek brethren are allowed to exist, as it were, by the brawn of tolerant meat-eaters who do her fighting for her. No vegan culture (or should I say "commune") would ever survive autonomously, because it would be overrun and slaughtered by some group of strong carnivores. They can only survive as hangers-on in the midst of carnivores who protect them.

Next, she writes, "... and you'll reap the spiritual rewards of knowing you aren't adding to the killing fields where annually the lives of billions of sentient creatures--all of whom are no less God's creatures than you or I--come to a horrific and unnecessary end." Connie, damn it, grow up. Read The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, and Primary Perception: Biocommunication With Plants, Living Foods and Human Cells by Cleve Backster. You will see that plants are every bit the sentient creatures of God. You're a plant murderer Connie--how does it feel, honey?

Connie dear, just be a good little girl now and shut up and go in the kitchen and make me a ham sandwich and bring me a beer.

Craig Preston

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly