INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

In Kansas, the so called "hayseed state" by teachers and scientists, the State Board of Education is discussing the introduction of a concept called "intelligent design" to take the place of "creationism" in the battle of religion against the teaching of evolution.

Creationism has lost a lot of ground since the "Monkey Trial". It is not science but a religious belief based on the first book of the Bible - Genesis.

Finally people realized that "evolution" is not a theory but a proven fact with more evidenced discovered every day. The "theory" part comes into place when the discussion turns to how evolution took place or more importantly, how it all started. Darwin suggested "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest".

The religious right, desperate to keep God in evolution, has proposed the theory of intelligent design and is pushing to have that theory taught along side evolution in our public schools.

The intelligent design theory maintains that nature in general is just too complicated to have arisen through evolution. This especially applies to living creatures. They propose a deliberate and intelligent design and therefore an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! They do not say GOD but hey, we all know what they mean.

There is a simply fascinating article titled "Unintelligent Design" by Jim Holt in the New York Times Magazine that details many of the arguments against intelligent design.

I personally believe that until the time when we absolutely know who and how the world and everything in it came to be, we cannot discount a higher intelligence (God) having something to do with it. The point is that whether God had something to do with evolution or not, you cannot deny that we (humans) have evolved from earlier beings.

Jim Holt, in his Times Magazine article takes on intelligent design by pointing out how many things in nature, including ourselves, are not designed well. In fact, some things are downright stupid - male nipples.

He points out that 99 percent of the species that have ever existed on this earth are now extinct. That means they have died out because they were too flawed to survive in our environment.

Some scientists maintain that God was just involved in the very beginning - providing the spark that created the first cell - after that evolution took place without the guidance of God.

Hey, you can come up with all sorts of scenarios BUT they would all be just speculations - theories. Jim Holt reminds us that Pope John Paul II said that evolution has been "proven true" and that "truth cannot contradict truth" and he was no slouch when it came to Christian theology.

So why are some people so totally clueless? You tell me.

Janusz

BUSH: U.S. MISTAKE POST WWII

I was downright shocked when I first read that Bush admitted, out loud, that the U.S. made a huge mistake after WWII by allowing Stalin to enslave millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe for over 50 years.

In case you don't remember, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill met Joseph Stalin of the USSR in Yalta, Crimea on the Black Sea. Stalin demanded Europe after the war and basically Roosevelt and Churchill gave it to him. The meeting was called the "sell-out at Yalta".

Historians have argued why this happened. Some say the Allies just wanted peace at any cost, some say they were scared of Stalin's military might and some say Stalin just lied and the Allies were too gullible. Many think Roosevelt felt that the about to be formed United Nations would control Stalin. Boy, was he wrong! Anyway, no U.S. president has ever mentioned the royal screw-up until Bush.

Maybe Bush is the only president that actually had a reason to mention the decision that led to "one of the greatest wrongs of history" - wow!

Bush has actually two reasons to mention this historic blunder. One, he wants to let Putin know that the U.S. will not stand idly by as Russia tries to retain control over its former USSR member countries - like Georgia. Bush is basically saying, we will not make the same mistake Roosevelt did in Yalta.

Bush is also justifying his invasion of Iraq and his policy to bring freedom to the Middle East. Roosevelt agreed to sell millions into Communist slavery just to keep stability in the world after WWII. Bush's rationale is, in his own words, "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny and sacrificing freedom, in the vain pursuit of stability".

I have to admire President Bush and his handlers, for having the balls to bring up unpleasant history, even if only to serve their political purpose.

It is time to allow facts of history to come to the surface and not just smile and gloss over them.
The USSR made a deal with Hitler to invade Poland and who knows what else. Once Hitler turned on the USSR, Stalin joined the Allies. Does that make him a friend oe ally or just a smart guy doing what he has to do to win. Putin had the audacity to say that the USSR liberated Europe after WWII. Now that is total bullshit that needed to be addressed by all countries - but they remained silent.

People in China are protesting because Japan denies they did anything "bad" during WWII. The Germans are the only ones that know the fucked up really bad in starting WWII.

Right now, I am giving President Bush a thumbs up for what he did and I agree that it is smart foreign policy.

Janusz

BUSH'S JUDGES

The Democrats are preventing President Bush's nominees for Federal Judgeships from getting confirmed - oh my!

Are we so stupid that we have forgotten how the Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees for judicial openings? Or are we selectively stupid - only if it hurts OUR nominees.

My suggestion is real simple - Republicans should allow some Clinton nominees in and Democrats should allow some Bush nominees (actually the Democrats have allowed many Bush nominees already).

Allow the Democrats to question, filibuster and try to block appointment of Republican nominees who's knuckles drag on the ground.

Janusz

DRUNK DRIVING!

Recently, we had a horrific accident in Farmington Hills, a community in the Metro Detroit area.

A really drunk man (0.45% alcohol) in a very large SUV hit a mother taking her two sons to the dentist; she was making a left turn, he was going 75mph, he did not even hit his breaks. All were killed.

In Michigan, we do not seem to punish drunk driving in such a way that people would think twice before they got behind the wheel of a car after drinking.

I am no angel, in my younger years I did drive after drinking. I am thankful for never hurting any innocent people. Now with age and hopefully a little more wisdom, I feel our laws need to change.

In the recent case, the man should be charged with second degree murder not driving under the influence. He should spend most of the time left in his life behind bars - period.

More importantly, Michigan laws should be much stricter for early offenders in the hope of teaching them never to drink and drive.

First offence, take their license away for a few months. Have them pay a hefty fine and have them visit a counselor. Second offence, take their license away for a few years, huge fine, time behind bars, alcoholism treatment. Third offence, throw the book at them.

I have seen strict laws work in Europe where people take taxis to parties and take the designated driver policy VERY seriously. It can work here.

Janusz

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER?

Recently, a city within the metro Detroit area, Troy, had to deal with a dilemma involving the National Day of Prayer. This day was designated by Congress sometime in the 1950s as a special day set aside for all Americans to pray for the United States.

In the city of Troy, a VERY diverse community, a Christian group asked the City Council for permission to hold a prayer meeting at the Veteran's Plaza. The same group has been supposedly doing this for the last 10 years.

This year, a interfaith group of Hindus, Muslims and other non-Christians asked to join the group in celebrating the NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER observance.

The Christian group said no. They were not going to pray to someone else's stinkin God.

The City Council thought about it and decided to let the Christians have their way - by a slight majority. Many letters to the editor were written and the NEWS even wrote an editorial which I feel did not go far enough in addressing the real issue.

Our Constitution specifically mandates a separation of Church and State; government will not endorse any specific religion - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The Troy City Council, by allowing ONLY the Christians to have a special session on PUBLIC PROPERTY, basically endorsed THAT religion as special and lumped all other religions into an interfaith group. To me, that is ENDORSING a specific religion over others by giving that religion preferential treatment and therefore in violation of the U.S. Constitution. I assumed the Troy City Council knew better but I was wrong.

Even if the Council did not know any better they should have respected the DIVERSITY of the Troy population; the people that vote for them.

Obviously, the Christians have no sense of NATIONAL as in we are all Americans. They are arrogant and plain stupid. They don't even follow what Jesus has taught. Jesus rebuked a Pharisee as a hypocrite for praying in public so others could see him. Jesus said you should pray to the Father in secret...".

So why do these so called Christians demand to pray on public property and in public? Can't they pray in their homes, their Churches, in the park, etc. Does their God hear their prayers only when they are said on public property?

These so called Christians want power. They want to tell us what is right and what is wrong, how we should behave, what clothes we should wear, what TV shows we can watch and what music we can listen to. Is this a free country or what!

Remember that our Founding Fathers foresaw this very danger of a theocracy (government by religion like Iran) and that is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. Do not let these so called Christians defile our Constitution.

Janusz

BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN

President Bush had a very long press conference recently where he again pushed his plan for allowing private retirement savings accounts within the Social Security System. In a nut shell, a wage earner can elect to divert part of his Social Security wage deduction into a private fund that the wage earner could control, i.e. invest in his choice of investment products.

What would the Bush plan do for the Social Security System. Bush says the system is in trouble. How would his proposal get the Social Security System out of trouble. Well, by his own admission, it would do nothing to save the SS System. In fact, it would actually hurt it by diverting funds out of the system. So why is he pushing it? I can only speculate because no one has come up with a valid reason.

If we look at the Chile plan which included private retirement accounts, we now know that the system failed because the workers opting for the plan did not realize the great amount of retirement money that would go to plan brokers as commissions. The UK had a similar experience. So is that what Bush wants - make Wall Street billions in commissions? Maybe.

Workers today can join a 401(k) plan at work which takes pre-tax money and invests it according to the worker's wishes. Workers can also contribute to IRA (Individual Retirement Accounts) if they have no pension plans at work. The money contributed to these IRA accounts can then be deducted from one's taxes. Even if you have a 401(k) at work, you still can contribute to an IRA account. You cannot deduct the contribution from your taxes but the interest that investment makes is tax free until you start using it at retirement.

With these retirement options, why is Bush pushing another option; one that can hurt the Social Security System for millions of retirees.

Our Social Security System means one thing to our workers: a guaranteed retirement plan. They can count on that money when they retire come hell or high water. It is automatic. It is not a lot but it comes every month.

This plan cannot just go on forever. Adjustments have to be made. Retirees are healthier and living longer therefore collecting benefits longer. As baby boomers retire, there will be less younger workers to support the retirees. What this means is that more money will be going out than coming in. Once that starts happening it is only a matter of time before the money runs out.

One thing to remember; Social Security is NOT in any imminent danger of collapse. Economists say we can keep going without any changes till about the year 2052. That is a long time from now.

Adjustments made today can extend that trouble free period much longer. One adjustment has already been implemented - raising the retirement age. Since we are healthier and live longer, this makes a lot of sense.

Another adjustment is to raise the cap on wages that can be taxed. Right now the limit is $90,000. Why not increase that gradually to say $120,000 or more. I would not increase the actual tax rate since I feel it is high enough right now.

Bush is starting to favor a plan where SS benefits will be determined based on a person's wealth - the richer, the less SS benefits you are going to get. Well I think that is a bunch of bullshit. A person pays into the system all his or her life only to see their contributions go to someone else? No way. I want what is rightfully mine and that is not greed, it is fairness.

I urge all voters to contact their elected representatives to tell them to make sure Bush does not tamper with the Social Security System. His motives are very suspect. He needs money for his IRAQ war and he is willing to do basically anything to get it.

Janusz

Blaming the "UNINSURED"

My local Sunday paper contained more columns by people blaming the medically uninsured for all our healthcare problems.

I agree that these so called uninsured do use the emergency room (very expensive) for all their aches and pains and leave without paying. The hospitals / clinics are forced by law to offer treatment, even at no charge.

Patients with health insurance are billed excessively just to cover the costs of treating the uninsured. Insurance premiums just keep going up and up.

So who are these dastardly uninsured that are causing all these problems in our health care system?

Well, we know that they are too wealthy to apply for MEDICAID and too young to be on MEDICARE. They obviously do not receive health insurance from their employer and obviously do not purchase health insurance on their own.

A recent study by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan found that out of 1.1 million uninsured in Michigan, 176,000 lived in households with an income of over $75,000 and 187,000 live in households with annual incomes over $50,000.

Many of the uninsured are 19-25 year olds that are no longer covered by their parent's health policies but cannot afford to buy their own coverage and feel that they are young and healthy enough not to need any health coverage (which age group has the most accidents).

I feel one reason why the uninsured do not purchase health insurance is that the only insurance policies available are VERY EXPENSIVE. This is because our State government has some stupid law that forced insurance companies to offer only policies that covered basically everything thus expensive!

An uninsured person would be more apt to purchase a insurance policy if it was affordable and offered options from basic coverage to super deluxe. Also policies for healthy 19-25 year olds that reflected the fact that they ARE young and healthy and were cheap, cheap.

Even with affordable, smart policies some if not more of the uninsured would still say, hey, I can get health care for free by just going to the ER.

Well, here is where we need some balls - MAKE HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATORY. Yes, just like you need auto insurance to get a license plate, you will need health insurance to see a doctor or you will be directed to a special clinic where you will be treated and then arrested - or something -don't have that part quite figured out yet.

Janusz