By New Times
By Connor Radnovich
By Robrt L. Pela and Amy Silverman
By Ray Stern
By Keegan Hamilton
By Matthew Hendley
By Monica Alonzo
By Monica Alonzo
Boss hog: After reading your article on Mike Schatz, I found myself feeling disgusted. I was compelled to rally my fellow "little guys" for a grassroots campaign to enact laws to mandate employer-paid insurance coverage for workers injured on the job. Then, even in a right-to-work state, when the Gary Carpanetos out there forego the coverage or refuse to submit a claim, they would be breaking the law! Not only would Mr. Carpaneto get the bill for the shoulder surgery, he would be sued by Mike Schatz's private health care insurance company for the costs they covered prior to his surgery. Now that would be justice!
As I was trying to galvanize my friends into joining the campaign, they informed me that this has already been done. The State Compensation Fund is up and running. Why didn't Mike Schatz give them a call? And could this be why Mr. Carpaneto isn't returning calls and is suddenly concerned with placating Mr. Schatz?
In the end, I hope Mr. Carpaneto finds his actions to save money and avoid being bothered with an injured employee prove to be expensive and bothersome indeed.
Mars face-off:Thank you for a wonderful synopsis of the issues and actions in the Battle of Cydonia ("To Spite the Face," Quetta Carpenter, December 5). Richard Hoagland is not a lunatic baying at the moon; his commentary and observations deserve a fair and comprehensive response because the implications of his conclusions are that we are being "handled" by an agency that is stealing our tax dollars for a surreptitious agenda. I am only one of many who wish for someone to hold NASA accountable for the responsibility they hold to their constituent financiers, the American taxpayers. If it has to be Richard C. Hoagland who points this out, then let it be so.
The public is not stupid; we can both read and think at the same time. And the words and actions from NASA sound like damage control statements rather than serious dialogue on an important subject.
It will be people like you who, in taking this conversation one more degree from the source, will show by good, accurate representation that the basis of the conversation is not rooted or limited in scope to one man and one issue. This is ultimately an issue of accountability that will not go away until a public audit of facts is held.
Voorhees, New Jersey
Positive energy: Thank you for your balanced coverage of this subject. I have been casually following this matter since I first learned of it many years ago. I feel that it is important that people understand what is really at the main point of this whole Cydonia controversy.
Hoagland believes that these apparent artifacts are geographically laid out in a manner that is mathematically related to circumscribed tetrahedral geometry and hyper-dimensional physics. Understanding this message has the potential to lead us to a revolutionary new type of energy generation. The ramifications of this new energy source could drastically alter the world's future.
This Cydonia controversy is truly one of the most important and far-reaching questions that the world has ever seen. We need the answers to these questions. By bringing this issue into the mainstream media, you are helping to spread the awareness and understanding of this important subject .
Science fiction: I must say, I wasn't surprised to see Richard C. Hoagland defending his Mars imaging conspiracy theory once again. The article stated that Richard was involved in unorthodox scientific research. This is the understatement of the year!
Legitimate science consists of guidelines and protocol that are accepted and recognized throughout the scientific community. As soon as you stray from this doctrine, you no longer have true science. I know Richard Hoagland personally; I have been to many of his presentations here in Phoenix and got to know him. What Mr. Hoagland won't tell you is that the only evidence that he has to support his claims (if you want to call it evidence) is a lot of photographs of the Mars surface, taken from hundreds of miles above its landscape, not to mention the limitations of the imaging equipment itself.
A real scientist would not base almost all his opinions on poor-quality, two-dimensional images that make it almost impossible to make any accurate conclusions, let alone the life history of a planet no one has ever been to. Mr. Hoagland's methodology reminds me of a saying: "If you look for something hard enough before you investigate, eventually you will connect some dots that don't exist." The late physicist David Bohm used to say in his lectures: "In seeking the truth in science, you must be willing to accept the facts you discover, no matter where the path takes you, without compromise." Any philosophy other than this, and you no longer have science, only conjecture.
Alan R. Morey
Afield of dreams: Surely Robert Nelson is joking. Although I commend Armando Reynoso on being a good father and wanting to stay with his family, he will get limited sympathy from me, if that's even what Nelson is looking for ("Hard Ball," Robert Nelson, November 28). I hardly call a career 68-62 record with only one season with an ERA under 4.00 (in 1998, mind you) something that every "baseball fan dreams of." As Reynoso surely knows, and as Nelson should, sports are all about the present -- for further evidence of this, look to Emmitt Smith, being pushed out of Dallas just after setting the all-time rushing record.