Send your letter to the editor to pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.

Meat and Global Warming New York, NY

It boggles the mind that in all the articles, including “Clean and Green” and all the discussions of how to conquer global warming and protect the ozone layer, everyone ignores perhaps the most crucial issue in the equation, the meat industry. Meat eaters in the US are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year. This is a well known fact published in a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Yet politicians, Gore, and “concerned environmentalists” talk about hybrid cars, more efficient light bulbs, solar panels and so on. Anything not to face the real issue and give up their steaks, which, in the long run will no doubt kill them with cancer and high blood pressure/strokes. It would be interesting to know why David Zink did not address the agribusiness in his article. It is said by many in the know, you cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist.

When will the public accept this fact and make the supreme sacrifice by going veg, better yet, vegan? In truth, it’s not much of a sacrifice. It’s a healthier, more humane way to live and to save the planet.

Sincerely, Elaine Sloan

Zink Replies

It’s true that meat makes up too much of the average US diet. The topic of the article I wrote was about transportation and energy, not meat-eating. Yes, indeed, corporate agribusiness is related, but if I was to try to address all the related issues, my article would have been much longer.

I won’t get into the morality and physiology (Homo sapiens has canine teeth, indicating that we evolved to have an omnivorous diet) but, Ms. Sloan is right: yes, eat less (or no) meat and more veggies, for health and environmental reasons if nothing else. And certainly never eat an endangered species, whether it’s plant or animal! David Zink

No Comparison New York, NY

A brief comment on Rémy Herrera’s article “War and Crisis” (April 2007) about his statement on the building of the new walls, comparing (the Rio Grande wall, the Israeli separation wall and the Schengen wall made up of 13 countries of the European Union), when he states that “these walls are much more deadly than the old Berlin one, which they replaced.” This implies that the Berlin Wall of East Germany was an evil deed, comparable to the walls of imperial Israel, the US, and the European Schengen group. This indicates a lack of historical understanding of the struggle that East Germany had to defend itself against the unrelenting aggression of the US, against their communist homeland. The East Germans found it necessary to erect a wall to thwart the attempts by the US to overthrow them. It was certainly not the deadly wall of Herrera’s imagination but a wall to protect a Communist society.

Philip Stein

Attack on Religion? via e-mail

I was very disappointed to find Ms. Bates article posted here on the PA website. It is somewhat offensive to Believers, Christians and Roman Catholics in particular.

Ms. Bates aparently fails to see that the problem is not the Roman Catholic Church or Christians. Rather it is capitalism. The capitalist system has failed, miserably, to meet the health care needs of US citizens. Rather than disparaging the Roman Catholic Church (and by extension Catholic people and other Christians) we should thank them for helping to meet American’s health care needs in the face of an uncaring system of greed. (BTW: Most Christians who are pro-life are not anti-woman. But that discussion is beyond the scope of this space and comment).

To implicitly demand that anyone, Believer or atheist, provide anything to others at their own personal expense (in this case the US Catholic community’s support of its hospital system) without respect to their personal core beliefs is not right. To my way of thinking this article smacks of the old “League of Militant Atheists” mentality (which greatly undermined the Socialist Cause) and fails to point out that the real problem is not any of the Christian Churches but rather a system (capitalism) that has outlived its usefulness.

Ed Ortiz

Bates Replies

I think you misunderstood the spirit of my article. I am, first of all, a Christian. I am a United Methodist, and mine is one of forty denominations associated with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. There are, believe it or not, many pro-choice Christians. My article was not intended to disparage the Roman Catholic Church. If individual Catholics, and privately owned religious health care facilities, want to proscribe or avoid certain medical procedures, I have no problem with that. However, when state-supported public institutions are forced to abide by religious doctrine, that is quite another thing. You are, of course, correct in saying that capitalism is a failed system. If we had adequate state-supported health care, we would not need private hospitals. No argument there. However, if we had a Socialist system (dream on!), I would hope that all health care facilities would offer a full range of services to people who need them. That would include reproductive health choices, right-to-die choices, and many other things. And I would be the first person in line to protest anyone being forced to receive a service that they did not want or need. I hope this clears things up.

Anna Bates