The letters on this page are written by the UUSDBA members and friends and were published in the News-Journal Letters to Editor. The most recent letter is at the top of the page. Scroll down for other letters printed this year. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the general membership of the UUS DBA. Permission to reprint these articles has been obtained from the News-Journal and the authors
2007 Archive
2006 Archive
2005 Archive
THE DAYTONA BEACH NEWS-JOURNAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
May 31, 2008 Letters to the Editor
POLITICAL ADVERTISING
A recent letter to the editor about a misleading Democratic National Committee ad against John McCain has me concerned for the well-being of its writer. Are we to believe that in 2008, the letter writer is somehow still of the opinion that political ads placed on television and in print media are supposed to be truthful? Since when has the media cared one whiff whether the ads by Republicans or Democrats contained "the truth"? The bottom line for the media is that they are interested in selling more ads.
Consider how this strategy gives the cable news show producers a self-writing script, as they trot out the usual talking heads, split-screen style, and tout the ad and the letter in another round of "He said, she said." Pompous pundits will debate the nuances of who is nobler, by virtue of who can suffer the slings and arrows of this process and therefore deserve the prize. What a stage for our national discourse! And, of course, the price of admission to the contest is that we, the citizens who are consumers of the media, give up all trust in politicians and grow more desperate.
The letter writer implied that Republicans would never take anything out of context. Can it be possible for any human being to be so certain of one side's infallibility after what we have witnessed in the past decade?
JIM BOSTROM, Ormond Beach
May 10, 2008 Letters to the Editor
NO TO ELECTIONS CHANGE
Re "Cities may combine elections," article, May 4:
Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall is urging Volusia County's cities to change the years they elect officials to coincide with the presidential and gubernatorial elections. She cites great savings we would enjoy if municipal elections were switched back to even years.
However, as I recall, cities agitated for the separation because voters' attention centered on prominent candidates (for president, governor, etc.) with big bucks for advertising, and local hopefuls were overwhelmed.
In this case, change would not be positive.
NATALIE WILLIAMSON, Holly Hill
********************************************************
Letters to the editor May 4, 2008
FOR EARTH'S SAKE, LETS'S SAVE TREES
We need to face the fact that global warming is a serious threat to humanity. One of its many causes is the continued destruction of trees and other ground cover that are our major protectors from damaging carbon dioxide.
Tree loss in Florida is so severe that our weather is changing. Because Florida has a long warm season, regular rainfall is necessary for plant growth and human needs. Adequate ground cover and viable wetlands were the source of daily afternoon showers during warm months for eons. Today those showers are rare.
Most of our occasional rainfall now accompanies storm systems that have no regular patterns. Rather, they move across the surface as part of nature-destroying weather violence. Between these wet weather storms are periods of deepening drought. Green growth is stunted and becomes vulnerable to disease and parasites. Some wetlands are now so dry they don't regenerate plant life.
We must save tree cover to keep planet Earth from becoming barren like Mars. Trimming must be the alternative to destruction. Downed trees should quickly be replaced and nurtured. Trees and wetlands are so vital to planetary survival that laws must be enacted to protect them as common societal assets -- like parks, air, water and sunshine -- because ground cover belongs to all of us.
Look at it this way: Your trees are mine and my trees are yours.
GORDON WILLIAMSON, Holly Hill
********************************************************
May 01, 2008
WHY THE EVOLUTION VS. RELIGION ROW REPLAYS AGAIN AND AGAIN
By REINHOLD SCHLIEPER
COMMUNITY VOICE
The "evolution vs. intelligent design" debate seems to be marred by a most fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific reasoning works and what it is trying to achieve; in other words, the distinction "religion" and "science" is really not very clear, except by way of the belief on both sides that we'll know it when we see it. But that's too simple to be accurate.
What advances science is the willingness on the part of a large community of persons to revise its judgments. What advances a religion is the willingness on the part of large communities to hold on to judgments and not to revise, despite evidence to the contrary. To find out whether a person belongs to the one or to the other community is to simply ask for the minimal evidence necessary for the person to change his or her mind about any issue. If the person acknowledges no conditions under which s/he will retract, then that person is of the religious community. Ironically enough, some scientists belong into that category. If the person can say clearly and unambiguously that, if X conditions were to obtain, then the person would change his mind, then that person is clearly in the scientific community.
Interestingly enough, some religionists also belong into that category. I strongly suspect the Dalai Lama, for example, to be part of the scientifically thinking community when he cautions against violence in the "Free Tibet" movement because of the harm that violence has done and will do; I strongly suspect the former Cardinal Ratzinger and present Pope to be of the religionist community when he insists on avoidance of birth control in the face of suffering imposed by overpopulation and poverty.
Let me illustrate with a simple example. We know that if litmus paper is dunked into acid, it will come out red. If I think about this matter scientifically, I will not get my knickers into a twist by simply acknowledging that if I ever were to dunk what really is litmus paper into what really is acid and come up with some other color than red, then the original rule would be wrong. I'd have to revise my rule in accordance with the new findings.
Suppose I believe that a god handles the affairs of this world in a benign manner. Under what circumstances will I change my mind? Thinking scientifically, I conclude that with the death of millions in pogroms, genocides, imbalanced economic distributions, or terrible health-care systems, that ruling god is either not ruling or not good, since goodness would require moral intervention of one capable of moral intervention without great harm to him-/herself. Scientifically thinking, I should reformulate my view of the deity. Religiously thinking, I am going to pad my theory with a lame excuse such as god's transcendence of my understanding -- never mind the very obvious fact that, in that case, I shouldn't even talk about something I have acknowledged not to understand.
I think that intelligent-design theory is or could be a viable theory if the adherents to it show clearly an alternate universe where they would be willing to abandon the theory. I suspect that they will not do so. The evolutionist, on the other hand, is not insistent on the truth of the theory; the evolutionist finds the theoretical framework pragmatically adequate for new evidence. Once evidence to the contrary comes in, I am sure that no evolutionist will cling to the theory. If a parasite manages to swim up a urine stream to live on and in the body of a man or if a worm munches on the heart of a dog, then these are all sufficient to give evidence of, at best, "stupid design" or "malicious design" while the evolutionary framework can handle those phenomena just fine.
If we were to reflect about this basic fact, namely that religionist thinking seeks certainty and truth without sufficient evidence and without acknowledgment of falsifying characteristics and that scientific thinking seeks probabilities with acknowledged falsifying conditions, then we probably could bury this silly debate about evolution vs. design quite quickly. Let's hope that our schools will also teach the rudiments of inductive reasoning so as to help students develop their own judgments properly no matter what legislators with limited intellectual horizons are trying to do to them.
Schlieper, Ph.D., a philosophy professor, lives in Palm Cost.
********************************************************
Letters to the editor for April 17, 2008
FLORIDA FOREVER
Re "State land-buying program may face uncertain future," article, April 9:
In spite of our "massive financial problems," Florida cannot afford not to invest in more conservation lands. One reason we are now in severe financial distress is because the former administration and other state officials have helped to strap the state financially by refusing to truly reform the tax code. Another is, of course, the general economic stress around the country. However, the downturn in our economy may actually be an ideal time for investment in environmental preservation.
In the past, one exceptional choice the people of Florida made was to develop and support the Florida Forever program, which has helped to preserve natural resources and valuable habitat.
However, the program is due to expire in 2010. As of yet, the state budget proposed by the House for this next fiscal year does not contain any funding for it. However, Senate Bill 542, attached to the Senate's proposed budget, does. Funding should be at least $300 million in bonding -- the amount that has been appropriated every year.
Because the funds would come from bonding, the money can be borrowed and available today and paid off in the future, when Florida recovers from these challenging economic times. The $900 million in existing Florida Forever bond authority could be used as soon as possible to take advantage of current lower prices for land.
Our current real estate slump provides historic opportunities for land conservation, but it will not last. We need to fully fund Florida Forever now and also develop a successor program to continue to realize these opportunities.
There may be no tomorrow for many of Florida's endangered natural areas. We should protect them not just because they are beautiful, but also because they actually add to the wealth of our state in so many ways, not the least of which is the possible aid to economic recovery and renewed tourism. If we fail to take advantage of the opportunities available now, much of Florida's lands and waters will be fragmented and lost forever.
CAROLYN WEST, Ormond Beach
********************************************************
APRIL 13, 2008
STUDENT'S WORK IS EXCEPTIONAL
The freely done line drawing self-portrait by Timbercrest Elementary fourth-grader Aaron Walley, as it appeared in The News-Journal on March 30, is exceptionally good. Many an adult would be proud of doing so well. He appears to be quite talented.
My hope is that he continues to be given free rein to draw as he wishes and receives excellent guidance.
WANDA CASSIDY, Ormond Beach
********************************************************
The following Appeared March 12,2008 in the Letters to the Editor of the
Columbus, GA Columbus Ledger-Enquirer
I am a frequent visitor to Columbus and an avid reader of the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.
If you are satisfied with the current socioeconomic policy that protects and nurtures the wealthy, that is, socialism for the wealthy - vote Republican.
If you are satisfied seeing the U.S. drift closer and closer to an oligarchy government of some South American countries, vote Republican.
If you are satisfied with exporting jobs and industries off shore then giving tax breaks to those guilty corporations, vote Republican.
If you believe the strength of a nation is measured by the size of its military instead of the size of its middle, vote Republican.
If you believe a first-class education for every citizen is not possible, vote Republican.
If you think Bush-Cheney did the right thing by going into Iraq, vote Republican.
If you are satisfied with the current national health system, vote Republican.
If you are satisfied with unfettered capitalism, vote Republican.
If you are satisfied with the worldwide lowering opinion of the U.S. in recent years, vote Republican.
If you are satisfied with the fact that as of this date a U.S. dollar will bring only 66 cents when converted into the European euro, vote Republican.
CHARLES L. McDEARMONT Daytona Beach
********************************************************
March 9th, 2008
Cameras in traffic
Many a person objects to the cameras proposed at street crossings in Palm Coast and, I understand, also in Orlando. However, perhaps one should think about such objections more carefully.
Having driven also in Europe, I know that the traffic culture there is different from ours. In Europe, I stop when the light turns yellow. The signal means for the intersection to clear, not for traffic to speed up through the intersection before the red appears. Red means I will crash into someone since the other side has green at that time, unlike in Florida where we get a red that signals a last-second speed-up option for traffic. Having been the victim of one such "it's the kind of red one should speed up for" driver, I know that such settings are asking for trouble.
Speeding in Europe likewise is governed by cameras. Such procedures are going to put an end to any high-victim and high-speed chases by police. A bill in the mail from your local traffic court with image of driver, license plate and clocked speed or status of the traffic light will be all that is necessary for conviction.
The camera is not functioning on an arbitrary and capricious basis; the culprit triggers the event, so no one's privacy is unduly invaded; proper driving will make sure of noninvasion. Europeans also hear of camera placements on the radio. The intent is to make traffic safe, not to siphon off money. The traffic fines are reasonably small because they may be relied on to happen. Compare that to our system where staggering amounts encourage gambling instead of safe driving.
In fact, Europeans signal each other when they know of a camera in use somewhere. However, Europeans also seem to agree that they will not signal the egregious speeder and all-around dangerous driver. Besides, I'm going to be very happy if unbiased cameras manage to catch some of the speeders from the various police agencies that would normally hide behind the blue/green walls of silence.
So, cameras in traffic? I'm all for them, no holds barred. As long as the culprit triggers the event him-/herself, no one's privacy has been invaded.
REINHOLD SCHLIEPER, Palm Coast
*****************************************************
COMMUNITY VOICES March 7 2008
Bruce Johnson (“Something New Under the Sun,” Community Voices 2/28/08) first seems to ridicule the FPL “Sunshine Energy” program, which requests customers to voluntarily give FPL $9.75 extra each month with the vague promise to produce 1000 kwh of cleaner electricity in Florida and other states. But he ends by saying to count him in! Why on earth would anybody do that? Well, count me out!
I resent the insinuation that only the “brightest” FPL customers will accept this “offer.” I am one of the brightest of FPL’s customers because I have no intention of voluntarily paying them over and above their present profit-greedy, inflated fees. Did the “brightest” not notice that the clean electricity will not even necessarily go to our state? That their voluntary contribution of $120 a year will not lower their energy costs one iota?
Proof of FPL’s insincerity is its lousy green record. The energy systems running Florida are predominately oil, coal and nuclear. No wind and less than 2% solar. Until Governor Crist declared a moratorium on coal, FPL applied for 3-5 new coal power plants. Coal provides about 40% of the world’s electricity and 70% of its pollution, killing over three million people a year.
FPL proposes “clean coal” which is very misleading because that technology won’t be available for decades, if ever. Investors are abandoning coal altogether. In Europe, most of the coal plants have been phased out entirely.
Next, FPL submitted two permits for nuclear plants. Nuclear is extremely expensive, requiring billions in subsidies, which come ultimately from us, the taxpayers. Nuclear plants are also very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Finally, these plants produce the worst possible pollutants with impossible storage problems.
FPL has suggested to the governor that he consider nuclear as a “renewable energy source” so if they built one nuclear plant they would meet the governor’s goal to reach 20% “renewable energy” by 2020! It would not have to produce one single watt of solar or wind energy!
FPL fought net metering in Florida until forced to give in to a recent ruling of the Public Service Commission. Today, if a homeowner with solar on his roof produces more power than they use and returns that power to the grid, FPL pays him five cents per kwh, while charging the same customer over 13 cents per kwh. When the Public Service Commission Rule is adopted, FPL will be forced to pay out the same as they charge, making solar energy more cost-effective for individual customers.
Ironically, for years, our “Florida Power and Light” has been forced to do this in almost every state - except Florida.
The truth is that FPL is a huge conglomerate, part of big oil and coal. They have no intention of giving up any power or profit. If more individuals opt to put solar on their roofs, FPL loses power, both electric and political.
FPL flaunts their wonderful 250-kilowatt solar array in Sarasota, serving 20 homes, as an example of where they are investing the $4,329,000 they conned from their customers since 2004. If that money was used to install solar water heating systems, it would provide FREE hot water for over 1000 homes, saving
families over $350,000 per year in utility costs. I ask you, what seems the brightest to you?
People are unaware that solar technology today is highly efficient and durable, offering 20-30 year warranties. Solar is affordable due to state rebates and federal tax incentives, together covering about half the cost. These investments pay for themselves in less than 10 years, after which solar owners are producing completely free energy for their use. Power groups such as FPL have worked diligently to suppress the facts. No wonder we have less than 2% of our electricity from solar in our Sunshine State.
The truly brightest customer of FPL will take his money and invest in solar panels on his own home, then go out and encourage the businesses, churches and schools to do the same. I belong to the Unitarian Universalist Society on North Halifax in Ormond Beach. We have just had a local company install a 9,984 watt solar photovoltaic system on our south facing roof, one of the largest solar installations in Volusia county, along with a solar hot water system and two solar fans to reduce the heat in the attic. Half of the total cost will be rebated by a state rebate. We were able to get an exceptional loan agreement from a local bank.
We will be saving about one half of our FPL bill. And as FPL rates go up and up, as they surely will, we will be saving more and more. Once our loan is paid off in 10 years or less, our panels will continue to produce free electricity for 15 to 20 more years.
We chose this project not only to save money, but to reduce our carbon footprint and to serve as a beacon for the rest of the community to see what is possible and right for our planet. The public is invited to a celebration and dedication of our solar installation on North Halifax Drive at noon on Sunday, March 30th. Come and see what can be done.
KURTLAND DAVIES
Ormond Beach
********************************************************
February 12, 2008
ANOTHER WATER GRAB
The developers of Halifax Plantation have requested a permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District to allow the extraction of 658,000 gallons more of surface water and groundwater a day.
Surface water and groundwater would come from the surficial aquifer, and groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer. It would serve a golf course, urban landscape and nursery irrigation. The withdrawals would come from functioning wells and 23 new wells, called "proposed wells" and a surface lake. The proposed project would also use Volusia County wells.
So the development games roll on. We are now near exhaustion of our water supply. We have severely affected nature's ability to replenish our supply, and serious unrelenting drought is likely in the future. Wealthy corporations and developers continue to fill their pockets at the expense and inconvenience of average citizens.
The Water Management District says if citizens want to look at this project's plans, we must go to its office in Palatka or some other unspecified location. Written objections must be received within 14 days from the date of the newspaper notice Jan. 30. Comments must go to District Clerk, 4049 Reid Street, Palatka, Florida 32177-1429.
The original mandate of the water districts was to assure the preservation and conservation of our vital water supply. Instead, the district has spent most of its megamillion dollar budgets distributing our most finite resource to assure economic growth. This is more proof that such growth is a liability rather than an asset.
GORDON WILLIAMSON, Holly Hill
**********************************************************
February 3, 2008
MEDICARE FOR ALL
Re "National health system," letter, Jan. 21:
Irene Neese states, "It was the American people" who killed HillaryCare in 1994. This bill would have required all employers to provide private HMO (health maintenance organization) coverage.
The public did become fearful, based upon the Harry and Louise ads that were paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America. HIAA spent $50 million of our premium payments and averaged 1,000 contacts with each U.S. senator and representative to protect its members' profits.
Currently, HIAA has 1,300 member companies. It explains why I spent so much time as a (recently retired) registered nurse trying to reach customer "service" "gatekeepers" (not physicians), to ask which rules applied to which patient. Then there were those without insurance. HIAA Web site's suggestion: Have states subsidize the most expensive patients. That's corporate welfare. Private insurance would still be fragmented, not be taking the time to teach preventive care, excluding pre-existing conditions, and continuing to have 30 percent overhead costs. Medicare has 3 percent overhead.
I'm for Medicare for all. So are 14,000 physicians (including two previous U.S. surgeons general), at www.pnhp.org., and 80,000 nurses of the California Nurses Association, at calnurses.org.
BARBARA SCHABLIK, Ormond Beach
**********************************************************
January 23, 2008
CHECK OUT FUNDRAISERS:
I recently received a call from a "U.S. Navy veterans" fundraising group. The obviously scripted, polite young man told me the group is sending care packages to the troops serving in Iraq and it wants "to do a professional job in fundraising."
I became immediately suspicious, as I always do when getting fundraising telephone calls, and I asked him to tell me exactly who it was who was doing this "professional fundraising" and how much of the funds actually go to the troops in Iraq.
I was immediately transferred to a supervisor, equally polite and scripted, who in answer to my repeated question replied that 20 percent of the funds go to the care packages! At that point, I told him this was ridiculous and fraudulent and hung up.
Amazed? Appalled? Angry? Please, readers, check every call and letter that you receive for fundraising. The majority these days are being done by professional fundraising telemarketers who take 50 percent to 90 percent of the funds raised. Very little gets to where you want it to go. Ask the callers the percentage question. Ask them to send you literature in the mail before you agree to contribute. Get the exact name of the organization and look it up on the Internet. Do not waste your money on these frauds.
GAIA DAVIES, Ormond Beach
**********************************************************
January 14. 2008 News-Journal
CLINTON HAS SOLUTIONS
Most of the candidates -- all of the Republican candidates -- tell us what they believe. I believe in world peace and solving world hunger, and I believe that for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows. But that doesn't make it so.
Only one candidate gives solutions to problems and reasonable, thoughtful, instant answers to questions: Hillary Clinton.
We know presidents can't just snap their fingers and get things done. We do know they can lie and get things done, but we certainly don't need another one of those. Building great expectations may just be inexperience, but the results would be the same as lying. We don't need that either.
I want to hear the absolute, plain, unvarnished truth, and that is how Hillary Clinton comes across. She knows change is incremental and that nothing is going to happen in one fell swoop. She has been tested, and we have seen she is a rock on which we may once again find respect in the world and lead by example.
Let us not get led down the garden path again by someone promising something we long for, only to hear lies and excuses. Washington, and the professional politicians, will do anything to get a Republican or someone inexperienced elected so the war machine and health care will continue to be a cash cow for them and their friends.
Hillary Clinton for president of the United States.
DOUGLAS C. GRAHAM, Holly Hill
********************************************************************
January 6, 2008
SOCIAL SECURITY ‘ASSESTS’
In his Dec. 21 letter, David Mellon plucks a misleading sentence out of an AARP bulletin saying "that the Social Security trustees' report shows that the (Social Security) trust fund assets plus interest will pay full Social Security benefits until 2040."
That would be nice, except that the "assets" aren't there. They've been borrowed and spent, year after year. What remains are IOUs from the U.S. Treasury, which earn interest, also in the form of Treasury debt.
This debt representing the borrowed surplus and interest will pay benefits until about 2040, only when and as that debt is redeemed. And the redeemer is? You guessed it, the U.S. taxpayer, in the form of greatly increased federal tax revenue. Or, more money borrowed from China and others. Or, of course, benefits can be postponed and/or reduced.
Whistling in the dark won't cut it. There's no free lunch.
ED FLANAGAN, Ormond Beach
******************************************************************
The following appeared in News Journal Community Voices on Jan 6, 2008
EVOLUTION HAPPENS BUT SCIENCE UNCLEAR ABOUT MECHANICS
Evolution happens. That is clear. Just how it happens, at the molecular level, is not. Yet this important distinction is often blurred when evolution is taught or written about.
The first edition of "The Origin of Species" appeared in 1859, before Gregor Mendel's groundbreaking experiments with garden peas. In the 20th century, there was a marriage between Darwin's original "descent with modification" thesis, and the advances in genetics. Though the impression is otherwise, science still understands precious little about the molecular mechanics of evolution.
Natural selection is strongly supported by evidence. Millions of species have existed through geologic time. A species is defined as a group of similar organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. To create something new, a given generation of Species X must produce offspring that are now Species Y, and can no longer successfully mate with members of Species X. To document that speciation has occurred is not the same thing as demonstrating the chemistry of how it occurred. The former has been done; the latter has not.
The earliest single-cell organisms reproduced asexually. Male and female variants evolved, along with mechanisms for gamete production, fertilization and development of the zygote into a multi-cell adult. These variants would necessarily have evolved in tandem, compatible at every step along the way. The chemical details concerning this sexual saga are unknown.
Man's nearest relative is the chimpanzee. Chimps emerged 6.5 million years ago, while man appeared 4.5 million years later. In only 500,000 generations, pan troglodytes evolved into homo sapiens. Yet their differences are much more dramatic than between any other two most closely related species -- witness the uses of language and tools, and the ability to think abstractly. The molecular specifics for how this great cognitive and manipulative leap could be achieved in so short a span of time have not been shown.
The age of the Earth is 4 billion years. Within 200 million years, the first living cells arose, likely in the oceans. This period was devoted to molecular evolution, during which simple units bonded to form the more complex ones found in cells. Natural selection operates on populations of organisms. An explanation is needed for how it could have operated on populations of marine molecules. When A and B combined, why would AB have an adaptive advantage over AC, or AD, or AX, when the ultimate biopolymer would be an enzyme with perhaps 500 of these building blocks bonded in a specific sequence?
The polymer could not perform its function until the 500th unit was attached to the growing chain. And how would its function be defined unless it developed in concert with the several thousand such complex molecules present within the membrane of the simplest living cell? How could such delicate membranes even form in the tempestuous seas? These are crucial questions; they remain unanswered.
In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey sealed the presumed constituents of Earth's early atmosphere in a glass globe. They passed high-voltage sparks (simulated lightning) through this mixture for a week. Several amino acids, the sub-units of proteins, were produced. While intriguing, no biopolymers, and no living entities, were formed.
British astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell commented on the random assembling of organic molecules in the primeval seas: "The possibility of such a chance occurrence leading to formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space we are considering, it is effectively zero."
The present state of evolutionary theory is unable to satisfactorily account for its foundational molecular underpinnings. Glossing over these deficiencies misleads students and the general public. That is unacceptable and unworthy of the scientific enterprise.
DAVID E. LAWRENCE, Hampton, Va. (formerly of Port Orange) Was a member of out UU Sunday Discussion group.
**********************************************************
