Category Archives: other voices

other voices, The Atheist's Pulpit

This Week’s WTF

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor
Country Lacking Real Values

WHAT HAVE you bleeding hearts done to my beautiful country?

We can no longer say or print “Merry Christmas” for fear of offending someone who doesn’t believe in Christmas. Nor can we say, “Happy Easter.” No longer is there a “Christmas” vacation. It is a holiday vacation. Nor is there an “Easter” vacation. It is spring break.

We have rewarded laziness and call it Welfare. We have killed our unborn and call it choice. We have polluted the air with profanity and an abundance of pornography and call it freedom of expression.

Children today have no heroes. Politicians lie and sports athletes use drugs. Parents call it searching for self-esteem. God is no longer allowed in school. The majority of Americans want and some have demanded that prayer be returned to school— to no avail. Morality has become a cesspool of depraved minds.

Once again, I ask, “What have you bleeding hearts done to my beautiful country?”

RONALD J. GRUBE
Albuquerque

Take a deep breath, Ron. It’s my country, too.

I’m an atheist and I believe religion has caused as much harm as good and I still say “Merry Christmas” to people. Shame on you for opposing the more inclusive “Spring Break” — not everyone believes in Jesus.

Or would you require everyone to worship Jesus?

God may not be in school, but he’s in both Houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court (8 Catholics, 1 Jew — 0 atheists).

And World War III centers around two reactionary religious zealots and the ironically named “Holy Land.” Holy? The fanatical, devout followers of three religions with trivial differences between them will show their faith in god by destroying each other and the rest of us. Some faith. mjh

mjh’s blog — ‘War’ on Christians Is Alleged

other voices

Going Nuclear

Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. …

Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of America’s electricity. Eighty percent of the people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that’s not including the nuclear workers). Although I don’t live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp.

And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the “Whole Earth Catalog,” says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group’s board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter.

There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. …

The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.

Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

pmoore@greenspirit.com

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

other voices

WTF and What He Said

1 Comment

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor

Questioning Terrorism War Near Treason

Those who call for the exit of the president of the United States, whoever he/she is, are the cause of the more than 2,000 deaths of our brave service people in the Middle East. It’s tragic that those who put greed for power ahead of the safety of this democracy keep delaying the victory against terrorism. That’s called treason.

FRANCES DODD
Albuquerque

Bush Should Stand by His Words, Resign

IN PUBLIC statements, the president said anyone who leaks information “will no longer work in his administration.” Now is the perfect opportunity for George Bush to honor his own word and resign.

MICHAEL G. ROSENBERG
Albuquerque

alBAHquerque, other voices

Cell Hell

We’ve probably all witnessed behavior similar to that which is described below: people being oblivious because of their cell phone addiction.

Of all the many bad examples, the ones that disturb me the most are like what I saw in the grocery today. A mother was on her cell phone. Her son pointed to a product and said something. His mom responded with “I’m on the phone!” Nice lady. God forbid you spend a moment in real contact with your child.

A few months ago, I saw a father pushing a cart around the store with his daughter riding facing him. He was glued to the phone. She was staring dully. Think she’ll remember fondly those trips to the store with dad?

If your kids hate you, won’t talk to you, or won’t get off the god-damned phone themselves, you only have yourself to blame. mjh

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor
Locals Worship Their Cell Phones

CELL PHONES have officially taken over the world, and nobody has even noticed yet. Mostly because they are all too busy talking on their cell phones. If only they could see the irony of Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” playing as their ring tone.

I work at a local retail store, and the ratio of people that I check out who are on their cell phones during the entire transaction is two-to-one. I feel as if I need to call them in order to ask to see their identification when they hand me their credit card.

I drive home from work, which is only a few blocks from my house, and someone who is busy yakking away at their cell phones cuts me off at least twice a night. The obscene amount of cell-phone usage has reached the point of becoming an epidemic.

When people are having a conversation with an actual human being, they should have the decency to unglue their cell phone from the side of their face for five seconds.

When they get in their car, they should have courtesy and respect for others’ lives and call them back later. They are not the center of the universe. Their cell phone is not God. If they don’t answer it, but rather call the person back later at a more convenient (time), the cell phone will not smite them. They will not die. I promise.

ANGELA BINGHAM
Albuquerque

I oppose cell phone towers as dreadful visual pollution. I oppose most public cell phone use as auditory pollution. I oppose most public cell phone users as selfish loud-mouths.

Wireless Action Network, NM concerns itself more with the ill health effects of cell phones. If you want to give yourself a brain tumor, fine. But those nasty towers may be spewing poison to all of us.

Gotta go — phone’s ringing. [Kidding — everyone knows I hate all phones.] mjh

other voices

ABQjournal: Speak Up!

ABQjournal: Speak Up!

IT WAS amusing to watch the hypocrisy during the war protest. The protest was not about the war, but a rally for the hate-the-president crowd. If it is human life that is your concern, why weren’t you protesting the old regime in Iraq that murdered tens of thousands of its own— or do you think an American life is worth more than an Iraqi’s?— C.C.S.

I WOULD THINK a report of 1,000 people marching in Albuquerque would warrant being on the front page.— M.S.

other voices

White House shouldn’t cut funding for national parks

Letter: White House shouldn’t cut funding for national parks – Opinion

Americans, including New Mexicans, prize our national parks, but the Bush administration’s budget ignores pressing park needs by proposing a $100 million cut.

Despite continued budget pressures in an unstable world, this budget does not reflect the priority that Americans place on our national park system. It does not begin to meet the needs of our national parks. In fact, this $100 million budget cut likely means that Americans will pay higher entrance fees for fewer services in our parks this summer.

According to a nationwide Harris Poll announced a few weeks ago, national parks top the list of federal government services supported by the American people. More Americans voice support for national parks – 85 percent – than defense, at 71 percent, or Social Security and Medicare, each receiving 76 percent support.

This tremendous public support however, is not reflected in the administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, which provides only a small increase for park operations and cuts overall funding for national parks by $100.4 million compared to current levels.

Already, national parks operate on average with only two-thirds of the needed funds – a systemwide shortfall in excess of $600 million annually. …

Last year, the overall parks budget was reduced by approximately $76 million, after being subject to multiple across-the-board cuts. …

The bipartisan National Park Centennial Act would also provide important new funds to address the parks’ maintenance and natural and cultural preservation needs. Our national heritage depends on it.

Diane Albert
UNM student

Centennial Act

The National Park Centennial Act would make the National Park System fiscally sound by the 100th birthday of the National Park Service in 2016. It addresses myriad funding needs of the parks, including visitor center upgrades, preservation of historic buildings and museum artifacts, and the removal of invasive species. The National Park System suffers from a multi-billion backlog of maintenance projects and a crippling annual operating deficit in excess of $600 million-a condition the Centennial Act is designed to remedy.

[mjh: This link leads to a list of co-sponsors of the legislation.]