Dems Shun GOP Greens
I want to commend Walter Russell Mead for "The Ice Cream Party and the Spinach Party" (Feb. 6), in which he highlights the family-friendly benefits of telecommuting. However, Mead, a self-avowed "foreign policy buff," is under the misimpression that Republicans are devoid "of attractive domestic policy initiatives" in this area. In fact, many of his arguments are familiar to Republicans, as they are ones we have long promoted for a more family-friendly workplace.
Specifically, we have proposed "comp-time" and "flex-time" for private sector workers. "Comp-time" gives employees the ability to choose paid time off instead of overtime pay. "Flex-time" permits employees to work more than 40 hours in one week, and then comparably fewer hours in the subsequent week. Since the mid-1980s, congressional Republicans have been working toward enactment of such family-friendly policies.
Yet, each time we vote, Democrats oppose workplace flexibility. As recently as last year (see roll call votes 27 and 258), and as long ago as 1989 (see roll call vote 37), Republicans have asked Democrats to join them in enacting legislation that would allow workers the flexibility to better meet the needs of their families while still being able to meet the needs of their employers. To date, the Senate has voted at least eight times since 1989 to enact these benefits. Democrats have repeatedly defeated these worker-friendly benefits and, in some years when they controlled Congress, even prevented them from coming to a vote.
It is time Democrats acknowledge these are fair policies that have proven successful in the public sector and, thus, should be afforded to private sector workers, too.
Sen. Jon Kyl
Washington, D.C.
Evolving Debate
Adam Wolfson's "Survival of the Evolution Debate" (Jan. 16) well identifies the salient points of a public dispute that goes back to the famous 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce Oxford debate, which Huxley won on debating points, without really proving or disproving anything.
As Wolfson indicates, few today reject the basics of evolution, which arise from observed phenomena supported by empirical evidence. Darwin's attempt to explain the cause of such evolution by a theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest, however, is a scientific conjecture that remains unproven. Darwin only provided us with an explanation, which even he admitted may or may not be true.
On the other hand, contemporary "Darwinists" such as Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould maintain an absolute presumption of naturalism--they presume a closed system of natural cause and effect because to do otherwise requires one to posit an alternative hypothesis of a transcendent, intelligent being as first cause. They argue that in light of Darwin's theory, to be other than an atheist is unreasonable, irrational, or perhaps even "ignorant, stupid, or insane."
The danger of maintaining such an unquestionable presumption and defending it at all costs, however, is that the Darwinists may fall into the same obscurantism with which Huxley branded Bishop Wilberforce. Stubbornly adhering to their hypothesis, the naturalists seek to quash evidence of intelligent design that might in the end prove the more fruitful and promising theory.
Gary Inbinder
Woodland Hills, Calif.
Eine Kleine Dissonance
Regarding William Kristol's "Bravo! Mozart" (Jan. 30): I am always puzzled by the love people have for Mozart. To me, there is an age for enjoying Mozart, and that age is 10. With the exception of his piano concerto No. 23, which is immortal and transcendent, I just do not relate to his music. Yes, Mozart was the most naturally talented musician ever to live: There is balance and proportionality in everything he composes, as well as energy and innovation. When it comes to the actual works themselves, though, I find Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, and Mahler greater.
In fact, I cannot think of any of the greats whose work I would leave behind in favor of Mozart's if I had to go to a desert island. I have been puzzling over this for years: Is it that I lack subtlety and so find almost every great composer from Handel to Copland and Bernstein more interesting because their genius is more obvious? Is it that Mozart simply appeals to the intellect rather than to the soul, to people who like crossword puzzles and murder mysteries? Or is it that it takes a truly delicate musical sensibility to appreciate him? I'll never know, but I'm always puzzled when a fellow like Victor Borge says that Mozart is in a class apart. He obviously hears something I'm missing. I may be a rube, but give me Chopin or Gershwin any day.
Ezra Marsh
Baltimore, Md.