To The Daily Sun,
I read Professor Maloof's latest temper tantrum in Thursday's issue of The Daily Sun. As usual, he attempts to defend President Obama by demonizing any and all who don't agree with him. He claims, "They hate Obama, they hate gay people, they hate black people, they hate immigrant Muslims, they hate labor unions, they hate women who want the right to make choices concerning their bodies — they hate them all. And ironically, they hate being called a racist and a bigot." And the professor continues to berate Republican stating that, "Their basic principle is that rich people shouldn't pay taxes and black people shouldn't vote." He said more, but you get the point.
A few years back, I took a pledge to not call people names. I do find that difficult to live up to when some label others as racists and bigots and seem unaware that their own words and actions are the very things they are railing against. They throw one absurd claim after another without a shred of proof to support them. For example, if the professor had done his homework, instead of saying that 51 percent of white America is not "comfortable" with someone in the White House who does not look like them, he might have cited the actual demographics . . . that 37 percent of white people voted for Obama, as did 93 percent of blacks. Further 44 percent of men and 55 percent of women voted for Obama. Is the professor's opinion that whites are racist because only 37 percent of them voted for Obama? If so, what does that make the 93 percent of blacks who did not vote for Romney?
The professor might also seek some learned counsel when he talks about taxes and job creation. A little history would show that lowering taxes actually has increased revenues, not diminished them. Study up on the Laffer curve, professor, and look at the results when John Kennedy lowered tax rates and when George W. Bush also did — in both cases revenues increased. And, consider your callous comment about the "death taxes". Prior to the so-called Bush tax cuts, the government taxed the amount of an estate in excess of $600,000, at the rate of 55 percent. That tax was devastating to owners of relatively small farms and countless small businesses. Those entities were being sold off at fire sale prices just to pay the government's confiscatory taxes.
Perhaps the professor is unaware that people, and their employers, pay into Social Security and Medicare for their entire working life. Those "contributions" are made with money that has already been taxed, and when they are collecting their monthly return on that investment, they are taxed on it yet again. A few years ago, I charted out what a person earning the average wage of $44,000 would have contributed over a 40 year work life, and had put the money in a personal savings account paying 3 percent simple interest. Upon retiring, the person could collect $1,500 a month until the age of ninety nine and a half. If the person passed away before that age, the balance in the account could go into his or her estate. Right now, while the Social Security has in the neighborhood of $3 trillion in that proverbial "lock box", what is actually in that box are IOU's in the form of government securities. However, since there are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, and will continue at that rate for the next eighteen plus years, the Social Security monthly payouts are now exceeding monthly income. In order to redeem those IOU's, the government must issue new securities on the open market . . . at an even higher interest rate than the 2 percent being paid on the IOU's.
As to Medicare, perhaps the professor is unaware that the government has acknowledged that Medicare has in excess of $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I don't suppose he has considered what the financial impact of bringing the entire population into a single payer system is going to be. I suspect that $17 trillion will get multiplied significantly. Stand in line, professor.
Private industry works because it provides tax paying jobs and is motivated for profit. Government bureaucracies don't work because, if they achieve the goals for which they were created, they would cease to exist. Perhaps the professor is unaware that ever single penny of government revenues come from business enterprises. Not growing businesses but growing government, is the quickest way to bankrupt the country and destroy the nation.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
To the Laconia Sun,
The return of the "Allopathic Allosaurus" hits the pages of The Sun with venomous angst and repetitive, superheated rhetoric in his letter of this past March 15. Sounding all the world like the high priest of pomposity, Mirno Pasquali decries from on high that he and traditional medicine practitioners are the final arbiters of how we all should make our health care decisions.
"Believing that chiropractic manipulation can treat any medical disease is akin to believing that professional wrestling is a sport." Summoning his inner Hulk Hogan, Mr. Pasquali is just so gosh darn sure that the many thousands of chiropractors across the nation who have performed millions of spinal adjustments have done nothing to improve the health of their patients. He condescendingly tells all parents who have sought chiropractic care that they are just "throwing your money away." That would be his sledge hammer-like assessment, as he attempts to place a "Killer Kowalski-like" choke hold on any alternatives to drug therapy.
Having optimal nerve function which appears to facilitate improved immune function by emphasizing our own body's innate healing ability makes common sense to me. Having a properly functioning immune system through positive brain/body communication provides us with the best chance of staying well and fighting off disease. That makes a lot of sense as well.
Leon Kass, University of Chicago professor emeritus, now at the American Enterprise Institute, makes the following assessment: "It seems boring to suggest that the most important path is a vanilla virtue — prudence". That would be careful, good choices that provide minimal risk of danger or injury when considering our health options. Certainly, comparing the risk of chiropractic adjustments to the consumption of drugs is a no brainer. Just spend a few hours watching all the lawyers appearing on daytime television going after the pharmaceutical companies for the damage they have caused. Drugs and surgery are sometimes necessary, but should they not be a last resort option? Band-aid approach or addressing the root cause of ones' illness. Should it not be the choice of the patient?
As George Will notes, "The premise that health is the product of medicine leads government to believe it can deliver health by judiciously distributing preventative or therapeutic medicines." Common sense tell us that adding toxic chemicals to an already compromised immune system is a stop-gap measure at best and only leads to a shortened life span at worst.
"One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small; and the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all. When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead, and the white knight is talking backwards. And the red queen's off with her head. Remember what the door mouse said, feed your head, feed your head". Now, I have no idea if PA Pasquali is a fan of Jefferson Airplanes' "White Rabbit." Nor do I know if he listens to the lyrics while resting on his "Surrealistic Pillow." I have no idea if he has fallen while chasing rabbits. Perhaps I'll go ask Alice because the PA talks down to us as though he is 10 feet tall. Kudos to these apropos Grace Slick lyrics and this 1967 top-10 hit.
Hidden from the public is the following facts which form the "Polio Paradigm." This being the endlessly mistaken notion that improvements in public health result primarily from new medicines. The enormous drop in the death rates of polio and tuberculosis resulted largely from improved nutrition, housing, hygiene and food handling. George Will also notes the following: "Typhoid too, became rare before effective drugs became available." And I believe that unbiased, scientific literature reveals that streptomycin produced only about a 3 to 5 percent reduction in TB. Yet, George notes that the cultural bias persists in the belief that improved health is achieved only through the medical-intervention model.
Such is the result of a massive campaign of advertising by the pharmaceutical/industrial complex aided and abetted by our very own government. It is all about power and control over our lives. If our government was really interested in our "wellness care," they would spend some of our tax dollars doing more extensive research into the tremendous volume of anecdotal evidence and chiropractic research that has been collected over the past century. Instead, most politicians have been bought off and bought into the allopathic medical-intervention model. Which should be more appropriately labeled, "sick care" rather than "health care."
Finally, the "all-knowing" allopathic allosaurus makes one final attack on all parents who utilize chiropractic care for their children: "More importantly you, just like their false claims regarding vaccinations, are putting your child at risk." Apparently, according to this particular physician's assistant, parents are just too stupid to make good healthcare choices for their children. In fact, when it comes to vaccines, the medical profession treats us like uneducated dolts.
Neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock has a few questions for PA Pasquali. (1) Why are the folks administering vaccines so afraid of telling the truth about side effects? (2) Why do they go to such great lengths to make this information unavailable to the general public? (3) Why did the pharmaceutical companies pressure Congress to pass a law protecting them against vaccine-injury lawsuits? (4) And why is the recourse to legal redress so well hidden from the public?
You know, it would be quite ironic if Mr. Pasquali was "hoist on his own petard" by being negatively affected by a side-effect from one of the very drugs he prescribes to his patients. If so, not to worry my self-indulgent physician. The chiropractic family will welcome you with open arms as you seek to spark your body's innate ability to heal itself. Now, about that haughty and conceited, elitist attitude that comes across in your letters. Some prudent practice in the art of modest, self-effacing introspection just might be in order. I'm working on it myself. Perhaps we can start a support group. We could take turns being in charge.
Last Updated on Thursday, 03 April 2014 09:19
To The Daily Sun,
I take a contrary position when it comes to continuing to feed birds past the April 1 deadline published by the N.H. Fish and Game Department (NHF&G) due to the possibility of attracting bears.
Think about what has transpired this past winter when we now not only have the normal winter birds vying for food, but also have significant flocks of robins wintering over that put an additional drain on the very limited food resources for birds. For this naturalist/observer it doesn't make sense to pull the rug out from under the birds we've been feeding all winter at a time not only when natural food sources are at a premium, but also when spring migrants are arriving and in need of food after incredibly long flights.
In addition to my regular birds — up to 40 doves, 17 bluejays, and others — I now have several cowbirds and 17 red-winged blackbirds (which are now my first harbingers of spring). Not surprising that I go through more bird seed now than at any other time of year.
The reason the NHF&G is suggesting taking in the feeders is because of the possibility of attracting bears, and rightfully so. People should never feed bears, be it at a feeder or elsewhere, or leave trash out that will attract bears. So, if you've had trouble with bears in the past or there is a good potential for attracting bears, then by all means either stop feeding the birds or maybe try taking your feeders in at night, assuming, of course, bears aren't paying you a visit during the day.
I suspect many feeders aren't bear prone and to remove all of them at such a crucial time in order to favor bears over the birds is what prompted this birder's editorial and contrarian viewpoint.
Last Updated on Thursday, 03 April 2014 09:11
To The Daily Sun,
I want to clarify a statement in the article written by Michael Kitch in Thursday's Sun. Perhaps it was a misinterpretation. However, it needs to be corrected. The information I am referring to appears in the last paragraph of Mr. Kitch's article. This information has appeared in other articles in The Sun and in other newspapers as well.
The paragraph reads: "Selectmen have extended the deadline to destroy or fence the castle until April 30 so the group of people who would like to save the castle can have an opportunity to create a plan to purchase the property and safely preserve the castle."
That "group of people" that first met to discuss the fate of the Kimball property included myself and Sandy McGonagle. After many meetings and many discussions and the involvement of Maggie Stier of the N.H. Preservation Alliance, we all came to the conclusion, that because of the short amount of time involved before the possible demolition of the castle, the swiftest and most logical way to make an attempt to preserve this property was to have the Kimball Wildlife Forest Committee proceed with this task by getting appraisal on the property and exploring the possibility of LCHIP funding. The forest committee was agreeable to all of this, and members of that committee expressed their interest in a possible addition to the conservation land they already oversee.
I think all those involved, then and now, will agree that this was the only way for this effort to move forward. Having another group, which is not already established, as the forest committee is, proceed with their own preservation effort is not a wise or a logical path for this preservation effort.
The public should not be misguided into believing that no one cares about the Kimball property, nor did anyone come forward to try to save it. That is completely incorrect. The focus should be on assisting the Kimball Wildlife Forest Committee in their work to preserve the Kimball property. They are "that group of people" that you speak of on a consistent basis.
Last Updated on Thursday, 03 April 2014 09:07
In his Kremlin defense of Russia's annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older deeper bond.
Crimea, said Putin, "is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus."
Russia is a Christian country, Putin was saying.
This speech recalls last December's address where the former KGB chief spoke of Russia as standing against a decadent West: "Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation."
Heard any Western leader, say, Barack Obama, talk like that lately?
Indicting the "Bolsheviks" who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, "May God judge them."
What is going on here?
With Marxism-Leninism a dead faith, Putin is saying the new ideological struggle is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud to lead.
In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God's side. The West is Gomorrah.
Western leaders who compare Putin's annexation of Crimea to Hitler's Anschluss with Austria, who dismiss him as a "KGB thug," who call him "the alleged thief, liar and murderer who rules Russia," as the Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins did, believe Putin's claim to stand on higher moral ground is beyond blasphemous.
But Vladimir Putin knows exactly what he is doing, and his new claim has a venerable lineage. The ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers who exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, was, at the time of his death in 1964, writing a book on "The Third Rome."
The first Rome was the Holy City and seat of Christianity that fell to Odoacer and his barbarians in 476 A.D. The second Rome was Constantinople, Byzantium, (today's Istanbul), which fell to the Turks in 1453. The successor city to Byzantium, the Third Rome, the last Rome to the old believers, was — Moscow.
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated.
He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia's flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity. His recent speeches carry echoes of John Paul II whose Evangelium Vitae in 1995 excoriated the West for its embrace of a "culture of death."
What did Pope John Paul mean by moral crimes?
The West's capitulation to a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide — the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, "They were LGBT." "It was an eye-opening moment," wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest.
Author Martha Gessen, who has written a book on Putin, says of his last two years, "Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world."
But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social, moral war where Russia's role, in Putin's words, is to "prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state."
Would that be the "chaotic darkness" and "primitive state" of mankind, before the Light came into the world?
This writer was startled to read in the Jan-Feb. newsletter from the social conservative World Council of Families in Rockford, Ill., that, of the "ten best trends" in the world in 2013, number one was "Russia Emerges as Pro-Family Leader."
In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers.
"While the other super-powers march to a pagan world-view," writes WCF's Allan Carlson, "Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12."
Will Vladimir Putin give the keynote?
In the new ideological Cold War, whose side is God on now?
(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00