Particle physics, prophesies
(Re: “Chasing the ‘God’ particle,” In Case You Missed It, July 28.) At the end of this commentary is written, yet again, the erroneous statement that the Mayans (or the calendar they use) are predicting the end of the world on Dec. 21, 2012. Many Mayans argue that such prophecies are false, and this date simply marks a time of great transition. A wise Mayan lady, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, has said that after Dec. 21, 2012, humanity will begin a fifth cycle of 5,200 years that will be the feminine and masculine energies in balance for the very first time (after four alternating cycles of feminine, masculine, feminine, masculine). Maybe the end of a 5,200-year masculine-dominated cycle will seem like the end of the world to some, but as Tum says, “I have great hope for the future.” Considering the lack of thinking for oneself so prevalent in the world today, as a media source you ought to be more careful about what ideas (the end of the world 12/21/12) you put into people’s comfortably numb heads. The prediction of feminine and masculine in balance (finally) gives me great hope for the future as well.
Editor’s note: A program about the 2012 prophecy aired by National Geographic featured an interview with a traditional Mayan woman who had a different take on 2012, as shared with her by her grandmother. There appears to be more than one Mayan concept of what the date means to their culture.
I read with interest Pamela White’s most recent column, “Women are not farms” (Uncensored, July 21). However, I must admit to some puzzlement over her outrage at the words, “A child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African- American president.”
As an experiment, I tore that paragraph out of your paper and over a couple of days I read the words to friends and acquaintances around Boulder and asked them, “Who said that, a Democrat or a Republican?” The final tally was exactly split 50:50. Perhaps more tellingly, fully half of the respondents said, “I can’t tell,” and even those who chose an answer admitted they didn’t have a strong conviction. The general consensus was that the topic is a socially and politically risky one to approach, but the statement in itself is not racist or biased. While my sample size was small, it was heavily tilted toward the political left.
Perhaps the exact words Ms. White quoted were taken out of context, and the following sentence was clearly racist. Or perhaps the statement is not in fact true, which is a different sort of offense. But perhaps it is also possible that Ms. White, as well as the commentators to whom she refers, take offense simply because the author was Michele Bachmann, whose purpose in citing the data is to support policies these observers don’t like, and that they therefore infer meaning (perhaps completely justifiably; we are talking about a right-wing nutcase, after all) that is not actually present in the language.
Editor’s note: The sentence in question was not written by Michele Bachmann, but by the people at The Family Leader, a conservative Christian political organization. To read the full document, including the sentence in question, simply search online for “The Marriage Vow” and download the PDF. As the column noted, the sentence pertaining to slavery has been removed from the current version; however, the language about “robust childbearing” that was the focus of the column has not.
Recall must go on
National right-wing organizations are sending mailers to strongly Democratic households in Wisconsin that would prevent progressive voters from having their votes counted in next week’s recalls.
The national media organization Talking Points Memo explains the two ways right-wing organizations are misleading voters in advance of these critical recall elections. Read the full text at bit.ly/WiscKoch.
Michael Sargeant, executive director, The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee/via Internet
Rebuild American Dream
On July 16-17, people came together at house parties and meetings throughout America to talk about progressive ideas to rebuild the American Dream. At the meeting I attended in Boulder, most people were disenchanted with the way their Democratic leaders are prepared to make bad compromises with Republicans on Social Security and Medicare. They are upset that corporations are taking over our democracy. They are concerned that the rich are getting richer while paying lower taxes, the middle class is shrinking, and more people are sinking into poverty.
The top priorities were sent to our elected officials in Washington, D.C.
The top choices were: Stop paying corporations to offshore American jobs. Put Americans back to work. Stop the war on workers. End all Bush-era tax cuts. Make Social Security solvent.
Stop corporate tax haven abuse.
Invest in public education. Implement the affordable health care act with a public option. Substantially reduce military spending. Eliminate corporate personhood.
Reinstate common-sense rules for Wall Street. Slam shut the revolving door in Washington between lobbyist and government officials.
These meetings were some of the first steps in a grassroots, progressive movement.
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
We the people must tell our leaders what we expect from them.
[ Boulder Weekly welcomes your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and should include your name, address and telephone number for verification. Addresses will not be published. We do not publish anonymous letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the property of Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website. Send letters to: firstname.lastname@example.org. Look for Boulder Weekly on the World Wide Web at: www.boulderweekly. com. ]