To The Daily Sun,
Don't say we weren't warned.
President George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us to avoid "entangling alliances".
President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned of the danger of the emergent "military-industrial complex".
We heeded neither warning. Now, U.S. bears the bitter fruits of both.
Elementary: nations do not have permanent allies, nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
U.S. international play has burdened our nation with horrible costs and unsustainable burdens, with vast damages resulting, to our nation's self interests.
U.S. military adventures long have resulted in countless, needless losses of life, treasure and opportunity costs, and now, the costly, permanent posting of military, diplomatic and economic assets across the globe: Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other nations — to our costs, loss and peril.
One example: U.S. attacked Iraq, surely not a perfect nation, but one that protected religious freedoms and diversity and treasured historic archeological sites, and established regional military and political stability — and turned Iraq instead into a tragic mess.
The costs of our foreign relations follies, in blood and national wealth, are destructive and unacceptable.
U.S. financially is "broke." We continue to "float" the illusion of solvency by borrowing money from China and other nations.
If America was an American household, America wouldn't qualify to obtain a gas station credit card.
Isn't it time that we heed the presidential warnings, and tend to our own "home place" and national interests first?
Michael Harris, Ph.D.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 09:35
To The Daily Sun,
This is in response to Tom Dawson's two letters to The Daily Sun in the course of a week regarding labor unions, and the letter from Bob Joseph of March 25 about the minimum wage. It almost seems to me that these two people don't like America very much, or at least they don't like the capitalistic economic system of free enterprise the U.S. Founders miraculously created, which may not be perfect, but it's the best the world has ever seen.
First, can you answer these questions? 1. What is the Ford Motor Company in business to make? 2. What is the Apple Company in business to make? 3. What is McDonald's in business to make? The answer to all three questions is the same — they are all in business to make money.
Is their primary purpose for being in business to create and provide jobs for people? Absolutely not. They are in business to make money for themselves and their stockholders, and a by-product of that effort gives employment to people who have a need and a desire to work and earn a living for themselves and their families. When the company's bottom line (profit) is affected by rising costs, in order to stay in business they must cut costs. And the decision on how to reduce costs is determined by what is the least disruptive to the operation of the company. And it usually means that the least skilled workers will be laid off first.
Fact #1: Most young people bring little or no skills with them when they enter the job market for the first time. The minimum wage was designed to give them an opportunity to develop some work skills and good work habits, because until that happens, they are not economically worth any more than that.
Fact #2: "Right-to-work" laws have nothing to do with someone's "right" to a job. No one has a "right" to a job. A company creates jobs in pursuit of their primary reason for being in business.
Fact #3: The minimum wage was not intended for the bread winner of a family of any size. It was, and still is for people with no marketable skills, entering the job market for the first time. If someone is the bread-winner of a family of two, three, or four, or more, he should have made sure he had the skills to support that family before he went ahead and had that family.
If the present minimum wage of $7.25 is not enough, as some progressives think, and that $10 or $15 is better, why stop at $15. Why not increase it to $25? If $15 is good, isn't $25 even better? How about $35? I tell you what. If $15 is better, why not increase the minimum wage to $50 per hour and make everyone happy?
Progressives want to change the labor and minimum wage laws for strictly political reasons, but they cannot change the laws of economics. Increasing the labor costs for the least skilled members of the workforce means layoffs of those most expendable. That's a law of economics that can never be repealed.
Small-business owners are the most powerful engine of any economy, and we are fortunate that most of them are benevolent and civic-minded enough to hire some unskilled and unproven workers who bring nothing with them to the job market in the beginning. But they are not going to do it at the expense of the success of their businesses, a fact totally misunderstood by the "progressive worldview," and people like Mr. Dawson and Mr. Joseph, and politicians who have never worked in the private sector.
Like our current president.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 09:31
To The Daily Sun,
Gene Danforth and Russ Wiles (again) graced us with some more anti-vaxxer quackery. As usual, if one digs into the sources and their agenda, credibility disintegrates quickly.
The Hannah Poling case is a good example of science gone bad and then anti-vaxxers adding to the confusion by misinterpreting the settlement. The government did not concede that vaccines are associated with autism. Every study ever done finds no link between the two.
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is a strange animal. In the words of NEJM's Paul A. Offit in 2008, "Unfortunately, in recent years the VICP seems to have turned its back on science." No kidding. The worst of VICP decision-making occurred in 2006 when Dorothy Werderitsh successfully claimed that the Hepatitis B vaccine gave her multiple scleroses. At the time, many studies indicated that the vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated MS. The Institute of Medicine concluded, "Evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis." But the VICP ignored the scientific studies presented just as they would in the Poling case.
The other issue in the Poling case was that after her symptoms appeared she was "diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah's signs included problems with language, communication, and behavior — all features of autism spectrum disorder. Although it is not unusual for children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies to develop neurologic signs between their first and second years of life, Hannah's parents believed that vaccines had triggered her encephalopathy." Presently, there exists no clear scientific evidence that vaccines can exacerbate mitochondrial deficiencies.
Gene also mentioned Susan Humphries as Russ did. Recently, Humphries advised Israeli parents, against the advice of the Health Service, not to vaccinate for polio when it was found by the monitoring systems in several city's sewerage. Smart, eh?
Another source on Gene's list is the Tea Party's favorite doctors, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS). Don't let the name fool you. Think Rasputin with a medical license. The far-right wing AAPS has made many bizarre unscientific claims. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Abortions are linked to breast cancer. Vaccinations are linked to autism. Being gay shortens your lifespan. Since 1944, the group's aim was the "defeat of any government group medicine". The group also opposes any over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. With John Birchers in its leadership, it's no surprise that they also opposed the Medicare and Medicaid acts of 1965, claiming, "The effect of the law is evil and participation in carrying out its provisions is, in our opinion, immoral."
To these sociopaths, it's evil to help the sick or disabled. A decade later they opposed the new Social Security amendment that would monitor the treatment given Medicare and Medicaid patients. No wonder the Tea Party loves these quacks. The AAPS actually opposes mandated "evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines" and are so paranoid they also oppose electronic medical records. They oppose any oversight of their practices.
Back in 2008 their journal published a claim that Obama was using a covert form of hypnosis called neuro-linguistic programming in order to get votes. The deceptions are here. There's more I could list but suffice it to say that their "medical" journal is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed or the Web of Science. Quackwatch.com lists their journal as an "untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical." An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described it as a "purveyor of utter nonsense".
Danforth's claim that over 100 people died from the MMR and none died of measles is also false. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmrdeaths.asp.) The problem is the source again and the deliberate omission by those using The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Russ Wiles used VAERS, too. The source isn't what Wiles and Danforth claim. From its data page it clearly states, "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event." Again, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established but Wiles and Danforth want you to think they have been.
The anti-vaxxer world is a world of shifting hypotheses and rhetoric. First it was mercury causes autism. No evidence has ever supported this, but mercury was taken out of the flu vaccine because, well, it's mercury. Did Autism rates drop? Nope. They accelerated. Now it's the aluminum. So they switched to blaming MMR vaccines and concocted new claims. Anti-vaxxer groups have no studies to support their claims, but they do non-scientific surveys which are always bogus due to their non-scientific methodology. Anti-vaxxers also have changed some of their language. They use "informed consent" and "pro-safe vaccination" and such terms, but they are always against vaccines no matter what new language they try on people.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 09:27
To The Daily Sun,
On St. Patrick's Day, the mail brought me a good laugh in the form of a hand-addressed letter post marked from Manchester with a return address somewhere in Texas. Right away I knew what this was, I get two or three yearly from lefties upset with my opinions printed here in the paper. The author even went to the trouble of copying a letter I read here in the paper a couple weeks ago written by either Siden or Veverka.
Note to the sender, highlighting in yellow doesn't make the original letter writers spin any more correct or make me change my opinions. The usual laughable stuff was in there and just confirmed my belief that progressives suffer from an inability to differentiate between an opinion they dislike and a lie.
For example this sender was insisting Fox News "is all lies and racial hate speech". I hear this a lot from lefties but when you ask for an example the always provide an opinion someone on Fox said or they hem and haw then say something like "it's all lies". I figure most of them have either never watched Fox News and have just been told by other left-wingers what to think and say or are so brain washed as to not know the difference between news and opinion.
Another note to sender: Polls show Fox News is the most trusted cable news channel on TV; CNN is second, then the networks, and MSNBC last. So there you go, sender, you figure which of us should stop watching what? But thanks for the laughs.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 10:14
To The Daily Sun,
Professor George Maloof appears to have enlightened us with the Opus Dei secret Catholic society that he says ensures women stand behind men in life. A natural order where the rich are rich and the poor are poor, a divine order of inequality. And he claims they won't tell us who is in this secret society. At least according to the New Republic, The Daily Kos and other left-wing sites.
According to the Catholic League, it lists all of its member priests and international and regional directors. Like any club membership, it does not make public all of its members. They say that yes, the late Pope John Paul II's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls is a member. However, they go on to say that the rumors of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Louis Freeh, Mel Gibson and Pat Buchanan being members is absolutely false. Nevertheless, the professor appears to be convinced that Scalia is a charter member of this alleged dastardly and dictatorial cult.
Is it possible that the learned professor has crossed the line of reasonableness by confusing the "Da Vinci Code" work of fiction with the real life Opus Dei Catholic organization? Which might explain why he believes it supports "dictatorial societies". Where is the real proof that this organization is as the professor implies?
Mr. Maloof then goes on to scold Scalia for his "maniacal obsession with a rigid interpretation of the Constitution." And therein lies the paradoxical rub. Remember when President Obama complained about the Constitution being a "charter of negative liberties". As we have seen over the past six years, he has decided to ignore the limits of power of the executive branch and ignore our Constitution so that he can push through his redistributive schemes. After all, he says he's "got a pen and a phone" and just doesn't have time for the tedious legislative process and the cumbersome checks and balances of congressional oversight.
It is President Obama, a progressive, Marxist-loving, power-hungry individual who believes in a dictatorial society, and not Justice Scalia or the Opus Dei members. "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money" exclaimed Obama. And who will make that decision? Could it possibly be his vision of a monstrously-sized federal government that will redistribute the wealth for the good of the collective? A complete contradiction with the beliefs of a Supreme Court justice who adheres to the limits of power of the president in order to avoid a dictatorship. Wouldn't you say so Mr. Maloof?
Saul Alinsky would be proud of Professor Maloof and his "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it," letter to the editor. Yes professor, go after people and not institutions. Personalized criticism and ridicule works so well doesn't it professor? Lucifer crediting Saul lusted for the vision of getting God out of our government and our schools. If he were still with us, he would be so proud of the liberal progressives who have made progress in driving the name and message of Christ out of the public arena. The professor is only trying to do his part for heaven's sake. Holy Beelzebub Batman!
Last Updated on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 10:06