Just finished going through the January issue of National Geographic, devoted to the exploration of gender. Some people are now telling us there are over 50 genders. They use terms like "gender fluidity" where your gender waffles back and forth between male and female, along with many other terms that defy reality and push the envelope for mass confusion.
The Nov 12, 'Male behavior and respect for women' author, Dennis Torgerson, complains about males who are abusive to women. He asked a woman: "Why do you tolerate this kind of behavior from these apes?" She replied, "Because there is nothing else." I think that the "nothing else" problem is going to be even more acute in the future. The last decade has seen major problems with streaming internet sexual content, i.e. U.S. Navy doctors did a study noting the increase in male adults under 40 becoming incapable of having sex with women.
The writer of the Oct. 6 letter, "Reasons to vote for Trump", says: "I am a 'pro-Amtrak' Republican and 'right-wing' Democrat. I endorse Donald J. Trump for president and Collin Peterson for Congress. Both are pro-gun rights. Both are also pro-life." I question the term "right-wing" Democrat. How can one be right-wing in a party whose official platform gives full support to abortion, homosexual marriage, and the right of men to go into women's public dressing rooms and restrooms?
I’d like to thank Tribune editor Kelly Boldan for that May 12 description of what letter writers can and cannot do, most notably: “Actually, any newspaper under their First Amendment right to publishing control can decline to publish any letter or advertisement they choose. See the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case: Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241.”
In the April 8 letter to the editor titled "Beliefs vs. science", the writer asks: "What makes one person deny the consensus of climate scientists and another to accept it?" You cannot always accept a scientific statement just because the majority of scientists go along with it; some of them will lean more toward research grant money and prestige rather than defending truth. Here's a prime example: There still is no plausible explanation for how simple dead chemicals combined and formed the simple one-cell bacteria. What's the problem?
Remember about five to six years ago in West Central Tribune when CURE and other environmentalists were telling us we had to stop the Big Stone II power plant project because it would cause more global warming and put more particles into the atmosphere? Now it looks like they may have to tell Big Stone to resurrect that project and tone down the new air quality control addition that starts up in the original plant next year. At a February 2015 AAAS conference in San Jose, geoengineering scientists said we may have to look at ways of blocking the sun’s rays to cool the planet.
The April 25 “Hard questions on abortion” letter to the editor says: “A woman has a right, and a say on what she decides to do with her body, and like it or not, the decision is hers.” The problem with that statement is that the fetus (child) inside her body is not her body; put a sample of tissue from that fetus through a DNA sequencer and it will tell you that there is somebody else residing in her body.