Letters to the Editor
azdirk
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 6
-
McCartney was Wrong
[Read the article: Hey, skinny bitch!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Much of our diet comes from the social standing of our ancestors. The wealthy ate a great deal of meat, the poor much less. For the poor, meat was reserved for special occasions and was often the parts of the animal that the lords and ladies didn't want. The "soul food" of the American South is a replica of peasant diets in Europe. This difference in diet was a matter of social standing. Being overweight was a sign of financial prosperity. Just take a look at portraits of the rising middle class in Europe. Meat eating even became politicized. In 1928 Herbert Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot."
Despite this, the wealthy did not become carnivores and the poor did not become vegans. Our anatomy and physiology is still one of an omnivore. I am amazed and amused by reading of celebs who are vegans who, because of their "active life styles," take protein supplements.
That is not to say that Americans don't eat too much meat, especially red meat; but those who insist on meat at every meal are following a social, not an essential, dietary pattern. Conversely, those who are vegans are doing the same. Do I feel better when I eat less meat? Yes. Do I feel better when I eat no meat? No. I won't argue with those who do, but I don't.
BTW, why was McCartney wrong? Generations of kids close to the farm witnessed hog and beef butchering and still ate meat. Why? They understood the reason for it all and what price the animal paid and the sheer drudgery of the process. It was hot, nasty work that did not always result in prime cuts. We knew what went into hamburger and head cheese, that the heart, tongue, and liver were edible, and how sausage casings were made. In our case, the meat was shared among relatives. At the same time, the work in the vegetable garden was also hot and tedious, and necessary. My mother was not comfortable unless there were 150 quarts of green beens on the shelf in the fall for a family of five. If you add all the other vegetables in the garden to the mix, our diet, was by necessity primarily vegetable. Meat was too precious and expensive to consume in large quantities.
To me, the meat vs. vegetable argument is a result of our separation from the realities of food production which is in turn a result of the wealth of our society. Some can afford to eat meat at every meal or to buy protein supplements or "organic" foods. I can remember when chicken was reserved for Sunday and casseroles were a staple at the table.
-
Just some random thoughts.
[Read the article: America closes the book on intelligence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was a school librarian. Years ago I asked one of my student clerks if he was going to college.
His reply that he was, but it wouldn't be at one of those colleges that "teach that evolution thing." As the conversation progressed, I asked him which of the creation stories in Genesis was the correct one. He was surprised by my question. When I offered to show him from the King James Version (the real Bible) that there are two versions of the creation in Genesis, he wouldn't look. Not only does the Bible trump science, it often trumps itself.
At the same school, a citizens group protested that there were no Bibles in the library. When I showed them that there were several different versions of the Bible plus the Koran, they tried to get the Koran removed from the shelf.
In my years as a librarian, many controversial books were removed from the books via the "five fingered checkout." It's OK to break one of the Ten Commandments to defend them.
Years ago, Coretta King's statement to a Congressional committee that the assassination of her husband and the Kennedys was linked was trumpeted in the newspapers as fact. That the statement was made was fact, but the content was opinion.
We pass new restrictions on voting because "aliens are voting in our elections." Yet no one to my knowledge has advanced any studies that show this to be true, and if true, to what extent that it is so.
Terrorists are crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. Do we know this because we are catching them or that we or that we are not catching them? If we are catching them, why is it not general knowledge?
Why is it better for the children of illegal aliens to not have an education (thereby limiting their exposure to English) than to be educated? (the same question can be asked for denying aliens driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.)
If we are to demand that, as public policy, all aliens learn English, why don't we create a system to do so?
Why aren't more questions asked?
-
Correlation is not Causation
[Read the article: McCain's risky strategy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although the decline of violence in Iraq is concurrent to the "surge," it does not necessarily mean that the "surge" directly caused that decline. There may be other factors.
1. A change in strategy by the insurgents. Laying low until the troops leave.
2. A change in strategy the the Iraqis themselves. Trying to combat the insurgency themselves.
3. A decline in money available to buy munitions. Even stolen munitions cause money.
4. A "wait and see" policy to the U.S. elections. Why blow yourself up in August when you can
achieve the same thing while alive in November?
5. A Plan B that will call for a sharp increase in insurgent activity in the fall.
6. All of the above.
7. None of the above.
I can stand on the seashore during high tide, throw stones into the ocean, and demand that the ocean retreat. My actions are correlated with the ebbing tide, but they are not causing the ebb.
King Knut alledgedly discovered that many years ago