Johnson's speech came from heart

As Becker stated, he was not at Earvin "Magic" Johnson's speech, but would he have been, I think his opinion of the comment would be different. The question asked was neither amusing nor humorous and yes, it was an insult to the University. Johnson was a guest on this campus and one individual's rude actions usually do stand out over any number of positive actions.

Also, because Johnson did allow those sitting in the balcony to shout their questions, I am curious to know if the individual who made the comment would have been as bold if he would have had to walk down to the microphone and allowed his face to be viewed by the rest of the audience.

One other insult to the University was the fact that Johnson did not know whether the president of the University was a man or a woman.

However, what Fettrow did not note was that Johnson also said the reason was that he was not introduced. I personally do not think that a guest speaker, especially one of Johnson's stature, should have to ask the gender of the University president. The president should have been eager to meet with him, as with any other distinguished speaker who visits our University.

Finally, as Becker asked, what does make Johnson a distinguished speaker? Why don't we ask the young woman who was so overcome with emotion after hugging her hero that she was brought to tears? I'd bet that her opinion would also reflect mine: Johnson's presentation was both heartfelt and well-received.

Suzanne Scarpino
sophomore-public relations

Iraqi citizens deserve some consideration

Unfortunately, however, in large parts of his letter, he is insensitive to the people of Iraq. How can he say that the people of Iraq view Saddam Hussein as a "god!?" A man who has terrorized his own people for years. I have had the privilege of knowing numerous Iraqis -- none of whom like Saddam.

Furthermore, to say that Iraqis believe the United States to be the "Western devil" is also grossly inaccurate.

Someone may argue that the people of Iraq are getting ready to defend it -- so wouldn't that show their loyalty to Saddam? But what the people of Iraq are defending are their homes and families against a possible foreign invasion. If a foreign country is preparing to attack your country's soil, would you just stand there and do nothing about?

Finally, it pains me how the Clinton administration always talks about "preparing the American people for war." What about the Iraqis? They're the ones who'll suffer the consequences more than anyone else -- and through no fault of their own. The war, if there is any, will be fought on their land not ours.

Mazen Abdel-Rahman
senior-computer science

Attack on Marines harsh, unnecessary

You said that even though Marines are trained for violence, they must control and restrain themselves. This is true, but when among themselves, this becomes dangerous. As a country, we are being lulled into a false sense of security; we must still train for the inevitability of war. How do you train a 17- or 18-year-old child for combat? You instill in him a warrior spirit, and you do this through violent training. Sometimes this gets carried away and "hazing" takes place. This is a fact. It is a small price to pay to ensure a competent and combat ready Marine Corps.

Ask most Marines if they believe in hazing; I'll bet the answer is yes. It appears gruesome, but unless you have been in the situation, you don't have the whole picture. A quote I once read best sums it up. "Looking in from the outside you'll never understand it, looking out from the inside I can never explain it."

Aaron Schwartz
junior-officer candidate U.S. Marine Corps

Marines still remain America's finest

Marines are trained to perform in an excessively violent environment and sometimes this reality leads to training methods that seem hard to understand. Commonly known military maxims are that you must train the way you fight, and that the more you sweat in peacetime the less you bleed in war.

What these statements reveal is that a certain amount of violence is going to be inherent when training people to fight. When you try to pacify training methods so that they are more palatable to armchair warriors, you send Marines into harm's way unprepared. Those who are quick to condemn us as animals and brutes will be the first ones to say, "Send in the Marines" when American lives are in jeopardy in Liberia or when the next Scott O'Grady needs to be rescued. How strange that when Marines perform these duties no one criticizes our training methods.

What society must recognize is that members of the armed forces find themselves in an impossible dichotomy where they are expected to be model citizens at one moment and to fight like rabid dogs at the next. It is ludicrous to assume that there will never be any overlap between these polar expectations. Rest assured that the "beatings" referred to have already been investigated and appropriate judicial action has been taken.

In 1832, Clausewitz wrote, "Kind-hearted people might . . . think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed . . . Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst . . . It would be futile -- even wrong -- to try to shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality." A Marine's mission is to fight and win America's wars. If this makes our training harsh -- so be it. Contrary to the implications of the editorial, Marines remain America's Finest!

Erik V. Orient
staff sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps
junior-history

Letters to editor not concise, simplistic

The PMS problem: The three part series should have been four, with the final installment concerning itself with the men who have to put up with PMS'ing women. Equal time is all I ask.

Lack of NASCAR coverage: One cannot (including The Daily Collegian) take seriously a sport who has a competitor named Dick Trickle.

Nike labor practices: If you lean to the left and are concerned with human rights violations, then don't buy products from Nike or other clothing and shoe companies that have sweatshops. (If you do this, you will probably be walking to class naked.)

See how easy it can be. Three topics covered in the amount of space many take to write one. Remember: Simplicity is beauty.

Erik Watson
senior-accounting

The "evidence" he is talking about does not logically support his conclusion. Lutz claims that how music causes an emotional response is "sheer mystery." The existence of mysteries is no justification for assuming that these mysteries are the result of a "Creator God." Just because something is currently a mystery doesn't mean that it won't be explained by science in the future.

Evolution doesn't contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics as Lutz claims. This law states that the disorder of an isolated system always increase. However, an important fact that Lutz is evading is that an organism's body and the environment it lives in are not isolated systems. Lutz claims that a "Creator God" is a "reasonable explanation for the order all around us." Not really. If there is a "Creator God," then he must be infinitely more complex than the organized complexity and because nobody can explain God other than merely stating a few of his alleged characteristics.

To just arbitrarily postulate the spontaneous existence of an incomprehensibly complex "Creator God" and be content that he is inexplicable is not "reasonable." It is blind faith. Furthermore, evolution is a "reasonable explanation for the order all around us." Even though the problem over the origin of life has not yet been completely solved by science, the evidence showing that evolution has happened is so overwhelming even the Pope can't and doesn't deny it any longer.

Mike Dahlen
junior-nutrition

The first is "random" mutation as a fresh source of genetic variation. So, chance, of a sort, does play a role, but this is only part of the story. Second, there is NONRANDOM selection of those genetic variations that work better than those already on the scene. Chance is not operating here. Third, there is a mechanism that permits adaptations to be passed on from one generation to the next -- the amazing DNA molecule. Taken together, it should be clear that evolution is not a function of chance as Lutz implied.

Anyone should not be misled by the term "theory." It is regarded by biologists to be so well-established that it is assumed to be correct in its general outlines. It is the guiding theory of biology just as the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are the guides of physics and chemistry. One of the profound discoveries about the genetic code is that all living cells use essentially the same code. There are relatively minor exceptions in which the code for certain amino acids in some organisms is different, but otherwise this discovery dramatically confirms the Darwinian view of evolution. It means that all of life on earth must have descended from one common ancestor.

Concerning the second misconception, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to systems that derive and consume energy from outside their own systems -- these are called "open" or "living" systems. Two obvious anti-entropic phenomena that build order out of chaos are evident in the everyday world -- crystallization and life. It is interesting that America is unique in the Western world for its resistance to accept the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is especially troubling to see this in our institutions of higher learning.

Robert L. Burgess
professor of human development

What would happen if we actually took a step back to take a fresh look at the evidence? Design is everywhere in nature, and this fact alone should be grounds enough for us to consider that there is, in fact, an "Intelligent Designer." Lutz asked in his column about the heart, the ear and the brain. To add to that list, can someone explain (with supporting evidence, not just idle theorizing) the development of flagella? Or hair? Or feathers? How about the development of ANY complex structure seen in biology? But this is never discussed in our classes. Usually, pains are taken to remind us that we came about by the random, unguided and uncaring process of evolution. Any form of "creationism" or "intelligent design" is summarily renounced, despite the fact that there is plenty of scientific evidence to explore this possibility.

We have not been told the whole story concerning evolution. Instead, we are inundated with only superficially supporting evidence, and discrepancies with evolutionary theory are ignored. To date, the Origins Club (www.clubs.psu.edu/origins) is the only outlet for students to study the evidence for Creationism and Creation Science. While this club has been quite successful in spreading information about Creationism, we as students should demand more from this University.

I challenge the departments of this University to come up with courses that provide evidence opposing evolutionary theory in their respective fields. Science is about exchanging ideas and theories. It is about looking at ALL the evidence, and sifting fact from fiction. Students deserve to hear, in class, all the evidence concerning our most important question: How did we get here?

Marcus Ross
president of the Origins Club