A community forum for the discussion of progressive ideas


Vol. 2, Issue 10

November 2001

Free -- Donations appreciated


Additional letters to the editor

Letters from Dave Sherman, Brenda Mooney, Judy Jung, Sherrian Bloomquist
Web exclusive

Like many, I am concerned about the continued viability and integrity of the Flagstaff Tea Party. There can be no doubt that the paper aspires to admirable goals, and is all integral part of our community’s efforts to reclaim its voice.

Likewise, there can be no doubt that in the year since the paper began, our community has suffered some hardship. We have lost beloved bookstores. We wrestle with the shrinking number ma-and-pa" businesses in town, and we are constantly struggling to maintain those small town qualities that make Flagstaff a unique and personable place. One of the remaining beacons in town is Mountain Harvest, the only locally owned organic health and food store in town.

Mountain Harvest is not perfect, yet it aspires to be something better. To do so, they have had to make changes. Desired improvements have been postponed, expansions delayed (they just got it stove after being open over two years) and everyone has had to make sacrifices. This has been done to maintain both a unique store as well as a unique attitude. It has not been easy.

According to Dan Frazier, Mtn. Harvest is the kind of store that the Tea Party would like to support. That would seem obvious. Less obvious is exactly how that support will manifest itself. The Tea Party's vision to accept advertising from New Frontiers will, of course, affect Mtn. Harvest in some small way. However, most disturbing is the "dilution of integrity" (a board member's words) that such a decision represents.

I imagine that some politicians get elected with idealism in their eye, only to see that evaporate in the corrupting of Washington, D.C., Inside the Beltway, lots or decisions are made out of the “need” to stay in office and/or to generate financial donations. Rather quickly the reason for being there is lost in the "need" to stay there.

I worry that such a transformation is well underway within te Tea Party. I worry that the relationship  between the paper's goals and the reality it is actually creating will continue to deteriorate. I worry that soon, the promises and idealism of Flagstaff's only local paper will soon not be worth the recycled paper it is printed on.

I urge the Tea Party to seriously consider where it is actually going, and where it wants to go. As the two diverge at such a young age, it may soon be impossible to reorient the paper back to its admirable roots. I hope such is not the case — for the sake of the town, Dan and Lisa and the countless others that have donated time and money in the hopes of creating something different.

Dave Sherman
Flagstaff

 

How  astounding that William Edelen has sources for his article "The Female

Supreme Being- the Goddess"  that are unknown to historians, archeologists,

and anthropologists.  .  His article makes claims that go back 25, 000 years.

 It amazes me that this man has attained such knowledge.  Was he picked up by

an alien spaceship, time-traveled back 25,000 years, and then gently

deposited in front of his computer (the one with crystals hanging all about}?

  This psuedo-scientist/historian claims that the world was created 25,000

years ago by a female goddess.  This was at the coldest period of the Ice

Age.  Temperatures were 59 degrees colder than today.  Yet at a time when the

world was so cold, ancient man did take time for art.  Female figurines which

depicted pregnant women were produced in Europe.  Even the bas-relief of the

pregnant Venus of Laussel has been found in Southern France.  Because there

was no written language at the time, how can we know what these figurines

represented?  Modern man has called primitive pregnant figurines  "Venuses". 

They are viewed as symbols of fertility.  Even today, pregnant women are

revered.  Who knows?  Maybe these primitive figurines were the ancient man's

Playboy.

  As I see it, modern science has found evidence that ancient man  probably

worshiped the Sun. Drawings found in caves caused scientists to come to this

conclusion.  This period was known as prehistory and the knowledge of it only

comes in fragmented artifacts which are open to interpretation.  I really

haven't looked upon the Sun as sexual, but hey, I'm open-minded.  Maybe, cave

art and  pottery shards tell a story that no one  but Edelen has seen.

  Edelen writes that  "about 2800 or so years ago there was a sex change". 

Even the numbers don't add up.  The Jewish calendar dates back to the year

3761 B.C.  So this puts creation for the Jews, Muslims, and Christians at

about 5762 years ago.  Because  man was believed to be created in God's

image, these cultures believe God to be male.

  In Mesopotamia around 4000 B.C., written language first exists.  Male gods

ruled over the female goddesses.  Ra, the Sun God, ruled in Ancient Egypt. 

Egyptians also revered Osirus, husband to Isis.  The Greeks looked up to Zeus

from whose head his famous daughter Athena was sprung.  Jupiter took the

place of Zeus in Roman culture.

Maybe God is a woman. Perhaps, 25,000 years ago,  this female goddess created

a world full of nurturing and warmth.  We have artifacts which show  that

during the Ice Age women were fertile.  We do not have evidence that God was

a woman.    I ask: Where's the proof?

 Mr. Edelen's  writings are fiction.   If your paper wants to be taken

seriously by an educated public, you need to have  articles based on fact,

not imagination.    Leave the sensational stories for the tabloids.

  Brenda Mooney
Munds Park

  Hi Dan, Lisa and Everyone!

    Thank God you are there, FTP!  After reading the totally biased report by AZ Daily Sun Editor, Randy Wilson, in today's (10/21/01) Sunday paper in his column, Between The Lines, about "anti-fluoridationists," it seems Flagstaff is living in a police state, citizens are being told only one side of the story in that paper.  His words mislead the public and he has completely ignored reputable sources that oppose fluoridation and scientific results that at the very least cause much doubt about fluoridation.  Where is Randy Wilson's scientific proof that fluoride is safe?

    Those of us who are proponents for safe drinking water have sent MANY letters to the Editor to inform the public and offer websites, the library and other sources to go to, and these letters are not getting printed.  My LTE was rejected due to "no sources referenced," so I faxed Randy Wilson 7 pages of source documents and quotes from reputable persons.  To no avail.  Either he can't read and/or his Christmas bonus is tied to supporting fluoride.

    What a sham for AZ Daily Sun to represent itself as a public information source.  In the movie, "Sneakers," now on video, there was a most profound line.  It was something like, "It isn't the people who own the guns who have the power.  It is those who control the information who have the power."  In other words, we will be "held captive" by knowing only what those who hold the power want us to know.  Thank God for FTP!  If I were (when I am) a multimillionaire your paper will go to every home!

    I had already canceled our subscription to the AZ Daily Sun and only occasionally bought the Sunday paper.  As of today I will never again buy another AZ Daily Sun as long as the "would be king" (Control Freak???), Randy Wilson is editor or if his successor chooses the same tack.  It is one thing to have and voice a personal opinion, but to intentionally suppress public information is criminal.  This is not freedom of the press.

    In the long run, people like Randy Wilson will lose.  They always do, but only always.  Light ALWAYS overcomes darkness, not vice versa.  The power mongers are there for self-gain, for their moments of "power" or glory, not for the welfare of all and we the people are rapidly becoming wise to these selfish motives.

    To quote Sathya Sai Baba, "If you cannot do good, at least do no harm."  Randy, are you listening?  Shame, shame on you.

    Thank God you are there, FTP.  I will increase our monthly contribution, support your work, encourage others to do the same, and meditate on and pray for your continued success.

 Judy Jung
Flagstaff

  "Important concepts which seem to elude proponents of fluoridation and Randy Wilson from the Arizona Daily Sun in the fluoride debate."

  Isn't it "junk science" to use one's professional standing to promote or endorse the mass medication of an entire town via its water supply without having determined scientifically the current fluoride intake of Flagstaff residents?

Many chemicals are added to drinking water intending to treat the water itself. Fluoride is the only substance added to water that is intended to treat people. That is a fundamental difference. Fluoride in the water is being used to treat a human condition — not the water. Despite protestations to the contrary, this is the definition of a medication (look it up).

A medical professional should not prescribe any medication without first taking a patient history. The general rule of thumb: a good history leads to a good diagnosis and together they form a good treatment plan. A prescription without a patient history and appropriate lab studies to determine dosage or need is grounds for a malpractice lawsuit. Every medical professional is required by law to know everything about the drug being prescribed: appropriate dose, interactions with other drugs, potential side effects, and any risk factors specific to each patient.

Water fluoridation is irresponsible because once fluoride is in the water supply the dose can not be controlled. People drink varying amounts of water and get fluoride from other sources as well. "One size fits all" doesn't apply when medicating individuals.

Children under the age of 6 months should receive NO fluoride at all. Certain people are at risk for fluoride toxicity — this includes children, the elderly, those with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C and people with heart and kidney problems. To put some people at risk to benefit another group with a non-life-threatening and non- contagious condition when other alternatives are readily available is unethical at best and quackery at worse.

Sherrian Bloomquist, RN
Flagstaff