Thanks for the article on the TCC bond issue. It was the most in depth article I read on the issue and actually made up my mind about whether to vote yes or no. It's nice to have a local paper that actually drills down into the details of the local issues that effect the community.
Harold Butler Jr.
Just want to say that I love your paper and miss it completely. My parents usually send one from home every now and again so I can see what Tulsa is really doing these days. I must say thank you for your insight and loyalty to the Tulsa Community. Since reading your newspaper I have a better loyalty to all things Tulsa now and I foresee that loyalty growing far into the future. Iraq is....interesting. More on that later if you'd like.
I would like to ask one thing of you and your staff. Would there be a possible edition of the Urban Tulsa Weekly that could come out around the time the Oklahoma National Guard comes home from Iraq to kind of re-introduce them back to Tulsa? I mean something that can help us get re-acclimated back into the Tulsa mind-set. I'm thinking about the history of Tulsa, multiple things to do as soon as we hit ground in Tulsa, the night life, what's changed, what hasn't. Anyhow, it's an idea, I'm in no way an editor so I won't concern myself with how to run your newspaper. Thank you for listening and I can't wait to come home.
-Christopher Loney, Baghdad, Iraq
All Over the Map
My attention was caught by the nonsensical Latin headline "Nihil Noli Sub
Soli" on page 7 of your May 8-14 issue. I would love to blame the writer of the article, David Deming, for the error in the headline, since the content of his article is equally erroneous; but I realize the headline might have been supplied by Urban Tulsa itself. I surmise that whoever was responsible was trying for the well-known adage "Nihil Novi Sub Sole," which means "There is nothing new under the sun"; but by putting the wrong case ending on "Sol" and substituting the word "Noli" for "Novi," the person responsible has ended up with a meaningless jumble of words.
The problem with Deming's article itself is fallacious reasoning. Like all complacent right-wingers who want to believe they can live recklessly and wastefully forever with no repercussions, Deming loves to cite specific examples of dire predictions from past decades that haven't yet come true. Then he makes an unwarranted leap of logic by asserting that since the disasters predicted in the past haven't yet come to pass, no predicted disaster ever will come to pass. It's as if, to Deming, concerned environmentalists are the "boy who cried wolf" when there was no wolf. But
Deming needs to realize the whole point of that cautionary tale was that eventually a wolf did appear, and those in danger from the wolf needed to heed the warning cry!
So what if some of the specific scenarios feared in the past didn't come into existence? That's no proof that there's nothing to fear now. Deming needs to open his eyes and ears. Frogs are disappearing; honeybees are disappearing. Both Atlantic and Pacific wild salmon are on the verge of extinction. Worldwide, many species of fish have been harvested so excessively that only the most drastic cutbacks could possibly build up their numbers again. Deming says the world's human population will eventually stabilize at 9 to 10 billion, as if that's a good thing. In fact, even the current population of 6 billion is unsustainable, as is shown by the extinction (imminent or already completed) of so many species of flora and fauna. But that's okay with Deming as long as he can keep his blindfold and earplugs in place for the duration of his lifetime. "Apres moi, le deluge" seems to be the slogan of Deming and all his kind. The irresponsibility of such thinking is unconscionable.
Now, am I a professor of zoology or botany, that I should make such statements? No; I teach English and Latin, and when I speak about imminent environmental collapse I do so merely as a concerned citizen (and OSN member) who keeps eyes and ears open. Note, though, that Deming's scientific credentials are in geophysics, giving him no expertise in biology, botany, or environmental science.
As I am quite frank about being a professor of languages and Literature rather than a scientist, I would also like to take this opportunity to address a letter (Urban Tulsa April 24-30, page 7) that was huffing and puffing in indignation about my status as a "learned scholar of Oklahoma State University." Seeing, however, that the letter was from well-known Tulsa eccentric Paul Tay, I shall be brief. I merely wish to point out the interesting irony that in the same issue of Urban Tulsa, five pages from Tay's diatribe, there appears an interview with Dr. Jack Crowley of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia, a specialist in urban planning and architecture who, on the basis of special expertise, completely confirms my own non-expert assertions about the importance of light rail in Tulsa's future. Life experience is worth something; I have lived in cities equipped with light rail, and I know firsthand its practicality and efficiency.
Greater availability of public transportation as an alternative to gas-guzzling private automobiles is only one of the many measures that need to be taken if living creatures on this planet are to survive. The potential indeed exists for something new under the sun: an Earth devoid of burgeoning life.
Share this article: