Contact UsFacebookTwitterRSS FeedShare
Letters to the editor March 19
Published 3/19/2012
Comments (1)


In Stefani Crabtree's column, "Rico’s relies on their reputation," she attempts to wax humorous at the expense of Rico’s Bar, recalling her own lapses in effort somewhere around the time of her sophomore year. I will venture to guess that in the future she may recall her review of Rico’s as a similar lapse, or a misplaced effort at best.

I will not speak to every fault she claims to find with Rico’s, but some need not go unchallenged. One could find a tale or two of mistaken drink orders in the best establishment, but the exception does not prove the rule — especially on a busy evening.

As for the loud jazz, I wonder what brand of jazz Crabtree is thinking of when she refers to it as only being suitable as a backdrop for philosophical discussions? Obviously it cannot be the vibrant, assertive music of Louis Armstrong, John Coltrane and so many others. And perhaps it has escaped Crabtree’s attention that Rico’s has the longest-running weekly live jazz shows in our state.

Finally, while Pullman has restaurants with a more extensive menu, that does not mean that Rico’s must follow suit. Rico’s strategy involves good bar food at a reasonable price, an excellent beer and mixed drink selection and a unique ambiance.

I will give Crabtree the benefit of the doubt, and guess that her review was an attempt to establish a reputation as a bold journalist, a decent objective in a time where our culture is swamped with mediocre reporting. It is most unfortunate that she chose one of Pullman’s finest establishments as the vehicle for her attempt. And parenthetically: the phrase for a slack in performance is “resting on your laurels” (not “riding”), which is something the hardworking and courteous servers at Rico’s most decidedly do not do.

Mark E. Swanson
assistant professor, school of the environment


I was highly disappointed to see the March 8 column “Limbaugh needs to get off the air."As an aspiring journalist, Leah Baird should realize the value of free speech. Regardless of whether she likes or dislikes Limbaugh, his commentary or his stance on moral values ultimately ought to be irrelevant to whether he is or is not nationally broadcast.  

The beauty of America is that anybody, especially the press, has the ability to speak on any subject. The irony of an aspiring journalist calling for someone at the top of her intended career to be silenced is phenomenal.  

As I pondered what a world where amateurs had the power to silence professionals in their own field would be like it, it occurred to me that while it would deprive each of us of something that we inherently value at least it would have saved me from reading this ridiculous column as I am sure that someone “less qualified” than Baird would have asked her to step down or be silenced long ago. This is America, you have the right to disagree, but that does not entitle hypocrisy.

Rhett Lashbrook
WSU alumnus, 2003


Regarding Dr. Hudson's rebuttal to Professor Lipe's letter, I feel I have to step in and disagree on the points of Dr. Hudson's defense. While creationism is valuable to be taught alongside evolution, it is valuable for the same reason students are taught about the geocentric model of the solar system in an astronomy class. The outdated model in question (geocentrism or creationism) acts as a historical backdrop and insight into previous views of the subject. However, said historical model should not be taught as an actual contemporary and accepted explanation if it lacks sufficient scientific evidence to support it, despite however much this model was in acceptance in the past or how much it may be ignorantly supported in the present. 

While creationism does have a marked issue with explaining radiocarbon dating, the biggest issue for intelligent design is the outright lack of evidence. Outside of a select group of religious texts and their derived works, creationism has a dearth of evidence that can prove its viability as a valid theory of the origin of life.
In stark contrast is the theory of evolution, which has immense pools of evidence that all support the theory directly. While missing links are present, this is due to the sheer statistical improbability of a fossil forming in the first place. The gaps that do exist are very small, and have been getting smaller as more fossils have been found.
Trying to outright deny evolution based on a small missing link is like looking at a series of school and life pictures of someone you have never met, and despite seeing decades of images, claiming he does not really exist because he is missing his 4th grade yearbook photo and a single picture of his 18th birthday. I personally am not a paleontologist, but judging from the Wikipedia article and the wealth of journal articles about the subject in numerous journals, I somewhat doubt that this is a"weak"era for the fossil records.

Austin Peasley
senior, genetics and cell biology

Leave the comment here:



Posted: 3/22/2012 12:58:08 PM


Sign up for breaking news