Concerning the letter "Imagine" (June 25), Mr. Callaway is resorting to left-wing scare tactics.
Does any sane person truly believe that electing a Libertarian/Republican candidate such as Dr. Rand Paul could lead to the fictional scenario he describes? Where does Dr Paul state anywhere that he believes any person should be discriminated against due to their race?
While being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, the Republican senatorial nominee made the mistake of underestimating how the liberal left can twist words and meanings into whatever form they want. When he replied to her carefully orchestrated question concerning desegregation, Dr Paul stated he abhorred racism and he abhorred the notion that the government can dictate to private property owners what they may do with their property. Is that an unreasonable stance?
Most business owners want to be winners in the marketplace, serving as many paying customers as possible. Any business fool enough to support discriminatory policies in a free-market economy wouldn't be in business long in this day and age. — George Biddle, Phoenix
Mail Tribune editorialists keenly perceive the sliver in their neighbor's eye yet fail to discern the plank in their own ("Human nature vs. science," June 24). In an otherwise commendable critique of those who rush to embrace fraudulent science when it confirms their own preconceptions, MT editors place "global warming skeptics" atop their list of the duped.
Yet, what proofs present our esteemed editorial board? Well, unlike the cell-phone radiation neurotics or the vaccine-induced-autism acolytes, global-warming skeptics face a far more fungible standard according to Southern Oregon's newspaper of record. To debunk the latter group, our editors rely upon an undocumented "overwhelming consensus" as irrefutable proof of human-induced global warming.
Is that so? Lemmings famously embrace overwhelming consensus too, you know.
Hey guys, "consensus" and "science" are not synonymous; they're actually much closer to antonymous. Should you ever bother to review the science instead of the speculations of some (lavishly funded) scientists, you will finally discern that plank in your own eye.
While the term "climate scientists" edges deservedly closer to oxymoron status in the vernacular, true scientists continue their quiet, consistent devotion to fact over opinion, consensual or not.
May I offer you a bigger pair of tweezers? — Steve Warga, Rogue River