Academic community stifles opinions at times
Professor Bill Lipe's March 7 letter to the editor illustrates why it is so difficult, especially in academic communities, to talk about different theories of origins.
In my presentations at Gladish (which I would have welcomed Professor Lipe to), I presented the major views, focusing especially on naturalistic evolution and special creation. I tried to point out the strengths and weaknesses of each. Probably the biggest problem for the creationist position is radiometric dating. I did offer a few ideas (not quite accurately represented by Professor Lipe), but concluded with "but I'm not happy with these ideas totally, either — this remains the biggest question for creationism."
I also added in my presentations that people hold on to their views despite the problems. Evolutionists hold firmly to their view, despite admittedly weak fossil evidence (missing links, Cambrian explosion) and weak understandings of how random mutations can account for all we see. So, I do not have a problem with an unanswered question, either — the answer "I don't know" works for me. But for the record, I believe in old Earth, young life. Forty percent of Americans believe in young life from a Biblical creation. That's the number one belief.
Rush Limbaugh still has a lot of defenders
If only Leah Baird's hopes for Rush Limbaugh's future and career were to come true. Sadly, they will not.
There are hordes of conservatives who are defending Limbaugh's comments concerning Ms. Fluke, and will continue to blindly support what he says. The reasoning behind this is simple: he says what they want to hear. Like it or not, the cultural divide in this country will always leave people like Limbaugh with plenty of support.
The removal of some advertisers from his program is not the beginning of Limbaugh's end at all. Other companies will simply fill the voids created by these companies, though perhaps at a reduced rate. Right or wrong, millions across this country ache to hear a voice like Limbaugh's, and advertisers would be fools not to capitalize on that highly loyal audience.
That being said, a main argument that has arisen from conservatives in response to this has been pointing to a supposed double standard in the media, as pundits on MSNBC have used similar language. While these incidents were directed at other members of the media circus, rationally thinking liberals (and all Americans, really) should apply their revulsion to disgusting hate-speech in the media equally, regardless of the political leanings of the person voicing it.
graduate research assistant, Dhingra Lab Tree Fruit Genomics Group
The university requires freshmen to buy RDA with an amount of at least $740 for each semester. The initial intention of requiring RDA was to help students have meals regularly. However, for most students, this is an unreasonable policy that causes waste.
To spend the RDA, I see a lot of students buy lots of food that they can barely eat. What is worse, some of them throw the food away without even a bite. On the other hand, if they ate all the food, they will consume more calories than they need a day. More calories means more weight. Obesity can cause various diseases.
Also, the food in dining places and markets are expensive. An entree like a slice of beef loaf cost me almost $3 of RDA, but with same amount of money I can buy a triple steak at Wal-Mart. I can buy a cup of ice cream at just half-price as it is in the market.
This spring, I have to spend more than $1,000 in RDA. To spend this money, I just keep consuming far more calories than I need. I do not see the advantages of RDA. Instead, I think students are just throwing money away. Instead of forcing freshmen to buy a certain RDA amount, WSU should let students buy whatever amount they want. Thus, not only can it reduce the waste of food, but also train student to use money wisely.