Bush a loser? Maybe, but he is better manI'm voting for...

the Forum

August 05, 1992

Bush a loser? Maybe, but he is better man

I'm voting for George Bush on November 3.

No, it's not a joke, it's the truth. It seems like every time I open the paper, I'm confronted with another story about how far the president is trailing in the polls. From the sound of things George Bush has about a "snowball's chance in hell" of being re-elected.

So why am I, in this my first opportunity to vote for a U.S. president, going to vote for a lost cause? Because I trust George Bush to make responsible decisions in behalf of the American people. He has in the past and I expect he will in the future.

If George Bush is such a great guy, then why is the nation in such bad shape? Think for a moment: who in the government is most responsible for the policies and programs that affect you and me from day to day? The president? No. Then who? Congress: a Democrats-in-control Congress. Well then, who is primarily responsible for the shape we're in? The president? Don't kid yourself.

And then there's Bill Clinton. What of him? The way I see it, Bill Clinton has constructed a Trojan horse for mainstream America. The Trojans fought a long war to keep the invading Greeks out only to be suckered into accepting a large wooden horse from their one-time enemies.

One catch though -- concealed within the horse were a lot of Greek soldiers who, once the horse was within the wall, jumped out and destroyed the city. Bill Clinton's Trojan horse is called "The New Covenant."

Sound good? You bet, but you won't see what's really inside until after Nov. 3 -- and then it's too late.

So I'm voting for George Bush. "Snowball's chance in hell?" Perhaps, my fellow Trojans, but I'll take my chances with the candidates I can trust.

Timothy Hawkes


Overdue memorial

The proposed Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., is much too late for some, but those vets in fairly good shape, the ailing and those maimed may have their own thoughts.

America should shame itself for not giving respect, honor, sympathy and recognition that was long overdue. The weary Korean veterans fought and died for what they thought was a right reason and a good cause.

Joseph Thaddeus Kasprzak


Debunking the 'myth' of a 'Great Arranger'

"The Great Arranger" (Samuel Poist letter, July 27) is a quaint piece of mythology that serves one dubious purpose: It makes the universe "sensible" to those uncomfortable with existential uncertainty.

For the truly rational and objective person, however, this is not rrTC sufficient reason to embrace a superstitious substitute for science.

The notion that the cosmos may be neatly "arranged" by some supernatural "super-being" may be Mr. Poist's personal belief, but it in no way represents a sound scientific conclusion.

There exists absolutely no support, either in modern cosmology or particle physics, that the universe "requires" some external supernatural agency for its inception, or continued existence.

Indeed, modern quantum physics provides compelling reasons to show that the idea of a supernatural source of "creation" is wholly redundant.

According to Princeton astrophysicist James Gott: "There is no theoretical reason why the universe could not have literally popped into existence from nothing."

Such a process, referred to as "bootstrapping," would depend on a minute quantum fluctuation -- but no supernatural intervention. Indeed, models for such a "self-creating" cosmos have been around for almost a decade.

More recently, the noted Cambridge astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has developed a "boundary free" quantum model for which neither a beginning nor an end of the universe is needed.

In Dr. Hawking's own words (from his book, "A Brief History of Time"): "What need for a creator?" The latest discovery by the COBE team (Cosmic Background Explorer) disclosed ancient relic structures of the Big Bang but also indirect evidence that as much as 90 percent of the universe is in the form of nonbaryonic dark matter. Hence, there is sufficient unobserved matter to allow the universe to re-collapse and re-emerge in a new Big Bang. Our current universe, therefore, could be but one of an infinitely long series of such oscillations -- in which life just happens to exist.

The existence of empirically supported scientific models renders all supernatural scenarios completely superfluous. These scenarios may allay believers' existential anxieties, but they do not enhance the quality of our scientific predictions.

For precisely this reason, myths such as Mr. Poist's "Great Arranger/Creator" are logically unnecessary. The cold, hard fact is that the accumulated evidence shows that evolution -- chemical and biological -- is quite capable of accounting for the physical universe we perceive. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we will come to full mental maturity as a species -- instead of seeking refuge in superstition and magic.

Philip A. Stahl


The writer is a member of the American Astronomical Society.

Hateful rappers

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.