Science, education and Starr

As a retired research and manufacturing chemist with more than 35 years experience in the petrochemical industry, I wish to respond to Rich Turner’s Feb. 18 letter opposing the selection of Ken Starr as Baylor University’s new president.

I found no conflict between my evangelical Christian faith and my scientific work. I came to Baylor in 1963 because I wanted a top-notch scientific education at an institution that was unapologetically Christian. I wanted my faith to be supported by my professors and teachers. I met my wonderful wife at Baylor and three of my children attended Baylor — two of which got a strong scientific education and are doing well in the medical field, serving the needs of others. All three of my children met their spouses at Baylor and have strong Christian families. I am so thankful for how Baylor has enriched our lives.

We need scientists who incorporate their Christian faith into their lives’ work. When scientists divorce the byproducts of their faith from their work — like integrity and truthfulness — we get results like have recently played out concerning global warming research and allegations that some scientists threw out data when it didn’t fit their theory of global warming. 

Scientific excellence and Christian faith can co-exist. I applaud Baylor’s selection of an outstanding public servant and Christian in Ken Starr.

Curtis Roorda

Woodway

Divisive, destructive choice

I’m shocked and appalled at the selection of Ken Starr — a partisan, right-wing Republican who isn’t even Baptist — as the new president of Baylor. I agree with the Feb. 16 comments in the Trib by Bill Nesbitt and Bernard Rapoport. I can’t imagine a more divisive and destructive choice.

As a lifelong Baptist, I have always felt close to Baylor. Two of my three children earned degrees from Baylor, and I have had countless friends from Baylor.

I was mayor of Waco when former Baylor President Herb Reynolds worked to prevent this kind of ideological takeover.

Starr is one of the most divisive, partisan political figures in American history. He led the partisan witch-hunt to undo the results of the 1992 presidential election. Whitewater and Blackwater tell us everything we need to know about him.

Starr wasted $52 million of taxpayer money on Whitewater to get President Bill Clinton — that was twice the amount spent by the 9/11 Commission. His investigation was one long, unethical abuse of power.

From what we know about Starr’s background, the Baylor University Board of Regents is either completely out of touch, or is trying to establish Baylor as a right-wing Republican university. Move over, Liberty University and Regent University — Baylor is coming through.

I wonder, were the regents unable to locate a competent, ethical Baptist for president of Baylor?

Charles Reed

Waco

Natural gas vs. coal

In the Feb. 17 story about Texas becoming the first state the challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding over the dangers of greenhouse gas, the article says that natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned. For some time, I have observed the controversy concerning the coal-fired generating plants. But I wonder if the right questions are being asked?

Why is a state with huge natural gas reserves shipping coal from Montana to power its generators?

Is coal that much less expensive? Does the federal government require the use of coal in the process?

Does anyone remember Mike Mansfield, Senate Majority Leader from Montana? It’s always interesting to follow the money.

Pat Stroman

Waco

Clarifying electric deregulation

I feel compelled to respond to David Orosz’ Feb. 18 letter. While it is certainly his right to comment negatively about Gov. Rick Perry, he should at least make sure his statements are accurate.

Retail electric providers do not purchase electricity from Oncor Electric. Oncor’s function is to service the poles and wires used to deliver electricity to our homes and businesses. Oncor, however, does not sell electricity.

And 85 percent of Texas homes and businesses are in deregulated areas and need not pay the average rate of 12.23 cents per kilowatt. They may shop for a better rate from an alternate provider. The exception to this are the 15 percent whose homes and businesses are located in electric cooperative and city-owned utility areas.

Most importantly, electric deregulation is benefiting Texans because competition does lead to lower prices. My home is located in a regulated area and, as a consequence, my rate is higher than it would be if my co-op was deregulated. Without competition there is no incentive for cooperatives to lower their rates.

To prove this, all one need do is look at other deregulated industries such as the airline and telecommunications industries.

How much did we pay for long-distance telephone service prior to deregulation? How much do we pay now? How much did we pay for an airline ticket prior to deregulation? How much do we pay now?

The fact of the matter is competition does lead to lower prices. Just ask anyone buying gasoline where there’s just one gas station in town.

Pete Gilmore

Aquilla

Insulting column mired by ‘bias’

I see at least two things wrong with Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts’ latest insulting salvo in his Feb. 19 column, “Go ahead, Sarah, make my day and really run.” It was aimed at the right in general and at Sarah Palin in particular.

He presumes that President Barack Obama is intelligent and that Palin is not. Both misconceptions are born of his own arrogance, ignorance and bias.

Sammy McLarty

Waco