Flu Shot Safety

[From 10/7/08, a letter from my wife Terri in response to a story about flu shots.]

To the editor:

Yesterday's front-page flu shot article, encouraging pregnant women to get the flu shot ("Flu shot for pregnant mom protects newborn," Oct. 6, 2008) was missing some pertinent information that people need to make the best decision.

As with any drug, the flu shot carries risks as well as benefits.

The greatest risk of the flu shot, especially for pregnant women, is the fact that most available flu shots still contain mercury, which is extremely neurotoxic to the developing brain of a fetus or infant.

We all know that mercury has been removed from most routine childhood shots, as was recommended by the AAP in 1999, but few people know that most flu shots still contain anywhere from 5 up to 25 micrograms of mercury. To put this in perspective, the National Academies of Science set the safe standard for thimerosal (mercury used as a preservative) at 0.1 micrograms per 2.2 pounds of body weight per day. So 25 micrograms given in a single shot would be over 10 times the safe limit for the average infant, and even more dangerous to a developing fetus.

In addition (according to CDC estimates in 2002) as many as 1 in 6 women of reproductive age already have blood levels of mercury that could pose a serious risk to the developing fetus.

These risks include autism (1 in 100 boys), autism spectrum disorder, including ADHD (as many as 1 in 10 children) and other, specific learning disabilities. That's quite a high risk of brain and immune system damage, but many women will take that risk if not fully informed.

In the original Enquirer article, Mark Steinhoff comments, "The only way to prevent that high rate of hospitalization in the very young infants [1 percent of infants 6 months or younger] is by vaccinating pregnant women."

Not true at all. There are many ways to prevent flu, and most doctors will recommend all of them--eat right, including lots of foods high in Vitamin C, get plenty of rest, wash hands frequently, and if you are especially at risk (e.g., pregnant)--avoid contact with others who are known to have the flu!

More balanced and detailed information about the flu shot and other vaccinations of interest to expectant parents can be found at www.generationrescue.org.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

[From 9/27/08, in response to conservative claims that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 "forced" the banks to make bad loans, causing financial meltdown.]

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) is getting a lot of blame for our current economic crisis. Enacted to prevent mortgage discrimination (“redlining”) against low-income and minority families, many now claim that the act “forced” lenders to make bad loans to people with poor credit, resulting in financial disaster. Is this analysis correct? Let’s look at it.

CRA was enacted in 1977; the subprime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded more than 25 years later. Additionally, the Bush administration weakened CRA regulations in 2004 by exempting small and midsized banks from the law’s toughest standards. Yet subprime lending intensified—at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened. So how can CRA be the main engine for subprime lending?

It becomes even more difficult to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when one realizes that the law doesn’t even apply to most of the loans being made today. Half of subprime loans came from lenders not subject to CRA, and another 25 to 30 percent came from institutions not required to fully comply with the law (see http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/barr021308.pdf).

Perhaps one in four subprime loans were made by the banks and thrifts fully subject to CRA.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say that 100% of subprime loans were made because the government required lenders to do so. Even then, financial meltdown wouldn’t have occurred if that debt hadn’t been sold all over the world as mortgage-backed securities.

Without the sale of these securities, some lending institutions would have (rightly) gone under as poor-risk borrowers became unable to pay their mortgages, but the bad debt would not have been integrated into the entire financial system.

In other words, it wasn’t the debt itself; it was the very lucrative selling of the debt that got us where we are today.

Poor People Didn't Ruin the Economy

[From 9/21/08, in response to a Walter Williams column about the U.S. financial crisis.]

To the editor:

Contra Walter Williams (“Economic crisis stems from failure of government policy,” September 21), anti-redlining laws simply attempt to force banks to apply the same criteria to all potential borrowers. Such laws don’t force banks to make loans to bad credit risks. The banks decided to do that themselves.

Mortgage lenders made loans to people with bad credit on the belief that rising housing prices would keep the notes out of default. Buyers were encouraged to purchase upscale homes they really couldn’t afford. Unsurprisingly, buyers thought this was a great idea. Why live in Madeira when West Chester is calling?

Traditional redlining schemes denied loans to middle-income blacks and Hispanics that were made available to lower-income (i.e., riskier) white customers. Laws that restricted such practices had almost nothing to do with our current problems.

It’s strange how so many are blaming the poorest Americans for our current financial crisis (when they’re not blaming Bill Clinton, that is). Don’t middle- and upper-class Americans who just couldn’t be satisfied with what they had need to assume some of the responsibility too?

Palin and the Press

[From 9/7/08, regarding Sarah Palin's refusal to speak with the press.]

To the editor:

The McCain campaign has refused to allow the media to interview Sarah Palin. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis tells Fox News that Palin won’t give any interviews until she feels “comfortable” giving one, which might not be “until the point in time when she’ll be treated with respect and deference.”

Please remember: In four and a half months, Sarah Palin could be president. She would have more global power than any other woman in history. Yet today her own handlers think she’s so unprepared and knows so little about the challenges and tasks facing the U.S. that she can’t even give a softball interview. That’s really all we need to know about her—or about McCain’s judgment.

Ready on Day One? She’s apparently not even ready to face down Meredith Vieira or Anderson Cooper. Can you imagine the furor if Obama were hiding from the press like this?

The Palins and the Alaska Independence Party

[From 9/3/08, about the Sarah and Todd Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party.]

To the editor:

Do Enquirer readers remember how Michelle Obama was attacked for saying—just once—that she was proud of her country “for the first time in [her] adult life”?

Now it turns out that Todd Palin is so proud of his country that for seven years he was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist group intent on removing the state from the union.

The AIP’s founder, Joe Vogler, has been quoted as saying, “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government.”

Compare and contrast.

Experience: Palin vs. Obama

[From 8/31/08, regarding the relative "experience" of Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama.]

To the editor:

I see that some conservatives are claiming that Sarah Palin is actually more qualified than Barack Obama to be on a presidential ticket because she has more "executive experience" than Obama, having served as governor of Alaska for 20 months.

I guess by that metric, she has more executive experience than McCain, too. Heck, maybe she should be at the HEAD of the ticket!

What nonsense.

Look, if you prefer Palin’s conservative politics to Obama’s, that’s great. But don’t insult my intelligence by arguing that the two of them are somehow of equal stature. Because they’re not.

Obama has a law degree from Harvard. Palin has a BS in journalism from the University of Idaho.

Before going into politics, Obama served as editor of the Harvard Law Review, was a community organizer in Chicago, and was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago for twelve years. Palin was a part-time TV sports anchor and fisherwoman.

Obama has been state senator and then U.S. senator of one of our most populous states. Palin served as mayor of an Alaska hamlet and was chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for one year before becoming governor of the 47th most populous state.

Obama is the author of several serious books about U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Palin, er, is not.

And . . . oh yes . . . during the Democratic primary, Obama defeated perhaps the most formidable political machine in the United States—the Clintons. Surely you can’t imagine Sarah Palin achieving this on her own.

So don’t come at me with the line that they’re both political neophytes. Palin is unqualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. It’s as simple – and as awful – as that.

Calm Down, PUMAs

[From 8/27/08, in response to Hillary Clinton supporters who threaten to vote for John McCain.]

To the editor:

I’m sure that Marilyn Gale (“Obama’s choice of Biden shows disrespect for women,” Aug. 27) and Dale Ballinger (“Obama lost election with his choice,” Aug. 27) did not support Hillary Clinton for president because they wanted four more years of Bush-like governance. Why then would they vote for a candidate who will give them just that?

Clinton supporters, voting for Barack Obama will get you more of what you want than voting for John McCain will. You would do well to heed the questions Hillary asked Tuesday night at the Democratic Convention: Were you in this campaign just for her? Or were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

Hillary Clinton doesn’t want John McCain to be president. Why do you?

How to Revitalize the Hamilton County Fair

[An edited version of this column appeared in the 8/15/08 edition of the Enquirer.]

Despite declining attendance, the just-completed Hamilton County Fair is too valuable a resource to be allowed to waste away to nothing. Community and business leaders need to work together to revitalize this event.

For the first time, my daughter entered a few food exhibits at this year’s fair (and took home a couple of ribbons). Suddenly, my family had a personal stake in the event. All three of my kids are already talking about what they want to enter next year. So it seems to me that one good way to breathe new life into the fair might be to increase the number of people who exhibit.

Although commercial agriculture has become less important to Hamilton County, more and more people are interested in being “green in the city” Lots of folks have backyard gardens, and even more want to learn how to grow (and preserve) some of their own food.

Perhaps the fair could gain new life by partnering with local garden centers, food co-ops, and the locavore community. There’s a lot of bread-baking, jelly-making, quilting, and container gardening going on. If these folks used next year’s fair to show off the fruits of their labor, they would be promoting sustainability while simultaneously establishing ties to—and strengthening—a vital community event. Allowing people to purchase Exhibitors passes online would make this even easier.

Rather than watching the demolition derby and slamming down nasty carny food, wouldn’t it be great to stroll around the fairgrounds visiting booths from local restaurants, listening to music, and checking out local artists and displays about easy recipes and micro-gardening?

The kids could have fun visiting the barn animals, riding the rides, participating in cooking demos, and playing games (Guitar Hero competition, anyone?). How about old-fashioned sack races and balloon tosses? Face painters and side shows (zoo animals, magicians) would liven things up too.

I can even imagine a local radio station broadcasting live from the fair and setting up a couple of national music acts, or hosting a “Battle of the Bands” as a grandstand event.

Here’s hoping the Fair Board can commit to change and not simply remain satisfied with the increasingly dreary status quo.

Gas Prices Aren't Coming Down

[From 8/8/08, in response to a Peter Bronson column about gas prices.]

To the editor:

Contra Peter Bronson (“Democrats actually worked against the president,” August 7), no reputable economist believes that lifting the bans on offshore drilling “could reduce gas prices dramatically.” Virtually all experts acknowledge that the real impact on gas prices would be no more than five or six cents, and would go unrealized for as much as a decade.

If Bronson—or an Enquirer reader—can direct me to an economist who actually argues that permitting offshore drilling will reduce gas prices by more than a few pennies, I’m all ears.

What Socialism Is

[From 7/28/08, in response to a letter characterizing Barack Obama as a "socialist."]

To the editor:

Letter writers such as Scott Hobbs (“Teepen confused on socialism meaning,” July 28) who regularly paint Democrats—and specifically Obama—as “socialists” need to crack open a book and learn what Marxism and Communism were really about. However much you might hate progressive taxation, it is simply qualitatively different than eliminating the private ownership of the factors of production. Even if you find it onerous, government regulation is not the equivalent of the total nationalization of the economy.

These are not minor distinctions, but fundamental to the very definition of what Soviet Communism was, and why it failed.

The attempt to tie Democrats and liberals (the latter of which was a term of abuse within the Soviet political structure) to Marxism is incredibly ignorant of the actual history and structure of Soviet Communism.

Autistic Children Have Rights, Too

[From 7/15/08, about recurrent stories in the media regarding the mistreatment of autistic children.]

To the editor:

The other day, a small news item reported that a four-year-old girl with autism had been thrown out of a Jackson, South Carolina, restaurant—by the police chief—for being too loud. Not for throwing a fit. Just for being a little loud.

The same thing happened a few days earlier in Edmonton, Alberta.

Then there was the story about the child with autism being removed from a commercial airliner.

And let’s not forget the priest in Minnesota who filed a restraining order against an autistic boy, barring him from attending Mass. Or the kindergarten teacher in Florida who allowed her students to vote a 5-year-old autistic classmate out of his class.

If you don’t have a child with autism, or one who’s recovering from it (like I do), you probably didn’t notice these stories. Or maybe you thought, “Good. Served those bratty kids and their parents right.”

Well, raising a child with autism is tough. About 80% of families with autistic kids split up. It’s also isolating. You lose touch with many old friends. Insurance companies don’t cover most of your child’s therapies, and most doctors don’t seem to know the first thing about how to help you.

In addition to all that, when the basic institutions of society—schools, businesses, even churches—tell you that your kid isn’t wanted around, it’s like being punk-slapped over and over and over again.

Apparently, our kids are a huge problem for people who possess such delicate sensibilities that hearing a disabled child cry ruins their day.

Maybe you think it couldn’t happen to you or yours, but with revised figures of as many as 1 in 67 first-grade children currently diagnosed with autism (based on Department of Education statistics) and 1 in 6 diagnosed with some kind of developmental, learning, or behavioral disability (CDC statistics)—you’d better not be so sure.

Does our presence make you uncomfortable? Too bad. Unfortunately—tragically—there are about a million families just like mine, and more every day. We’re not going away, and we have rights too. And we have long memories. We won’t forget who treated our children well, or who hurt them or turned them away.

McCain and Flip-Flopping

[An edited version of this column appeared in the 7/8/08 edition of the Enquirer.]

I see that Charles Krauthammer has written yet another column about Barack Obama’s “flip-flops.” What fun! Can I play? Only I’ll focus on John McCain.

McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy; now he supports them. He also once believed the estate tax was fair; not anymore.

McCain once firmly opposed torturing suspected terrorists at Gitmo; now he’s not so sure. He also formerly opposed the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion a couple of weeks ago, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

At one time, McCain supported the moratorium on off-shore oil drilling; now he’s against it. He also opposes a windfall tax on oil company profits. Earlier this year, he supported such a tax.

In 2002, McCain criticized televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance.” By 2007, he was actively courting the support of far-right religious extremists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Then he shifted again, denouncing the very pastors he’d previously sought out.

What’s McCain’s position on abortion? Who knows? In 1999, he told reporters that he did not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Now he does. In 2000 and again in 2007, he called for an amendment to the GOP platform on abortion to allow exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the mother’s life. Today, he opposes such an exception.

Gosh, where to stop?

He once supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

He once supported moving toward normalizing relations with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

He once believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas and Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

He once argued that the NRA should have no role in shaping GOP policy. Now he believes the opposite.

He once opposed a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he supports it.

I eagerly await Krauthammer’s next column, where I’m sure he’ll discuss all of this at length.

Drilling for Oil: Little Savings

[An edited version of this letter appeared in the 6/29/08 edition of the Enquirer.]

To the editor:

Many people, Peter Bronson apparently included (“Memo to Congress,” June 24), seem to believe that if only the U.S. would tap into its undrilled oil reserves, gasoline prices would fall to pre-1990 levels. Conservation—who needs it? We’re Americans, after all. Big cars are our birthright!

Needless to say, nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, according to the June 19 New York Times, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that about 16 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If peak production could be reached within 10 years, and most of the oil is taken over 30 years, this would yield about 1 million barrels of oil a day (or approximately 1 percent of world production).

According to economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, this could be expected to reduce world oil prices by about 3 percent. Using today’s figures as a barometer, the price of a barrel of oil would drop from $135 to $131.

How would this affect gas prices? Baker calculates that—again, using today’s prices—a gallon of gas would plummet from $4.00/gallon to about $3.92/gallon.

I’m dismayed that so many Americans are willing to risk our environment—and prolong our short-sighted oil addiction—for such a meager reduction in gas prices.

Obama and Public Financing

[From 6/22/08, in response to criticism of Barack Obama for opting out of public financing for his presidential campaign.]

To the editor:

Let me get this straight: When politicians want to spend taxpayer’s money on things like health care or poverty, Republicans think that’s awful. Creeping socialism, they like to call it. But when Barack Obama decides not to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money because he has enough from private donations . . . they think that’s awful too.

Oookay.

Ten Things We Don't Tell Our Doctors

[From 6/20/08, in response to a Reader’s Digest article about doctor’s “secrets.”]

This month’s Reader’s Digest contains a truly appalling article, “41 Secrets Your Doctor Would Never Share,” in which physicians across the country admit what most patients already suspect: They pretty much hate our guts. (My favorite revelations: That doctors prefer young, attractive patients to older, sick ones and they get massively irritated when you try to give them a complete rundown of your symptoms.)

So, in the spirit of this article, I present to you “Ten Things We Don’t Tell Our Doctors.”

1. My name is Tom. Not Tim. Not Ted. Not Jon. I know you wouldn’t recognize me if we ran into each other at Kroger’s, but for Pete’s sake, my name is right on the chart.

2. We haven’t been under the illusion that you care about us for some time. Thanks for confirming that in Reader’s Digest.

3. Many of us don’t visit you as often as we should because we just can’t face your barely concealed contempt for us.

4. Many of us have been mocked or chided by you—or your staff—for asking a single question. Just one question. That doesn’t exactly make us eager to see you the next time.

5. We’ve noticed how exasperated you become when we try to give you a thorough explanation of our symptoms. That’s why so many of us have turned to self-diagnosing on the Web. (Which also makes you mad.)

6. We will never again worship you as gods. Get over it.

7. We know that a lot of you have lost sight that medicine is a service profession. Many of you, in fact, seem to think we’re here to serve you.

8. A lot of us presume you’re in thrall with the drug companies. Hope you buy something pretty with that kickback you got from prescribing that new, unproven medicine to me.

9. We know you think we have no idea how hard it is to practice medicine. We know you think we should feel sorry for you. Maybe we would if you didn’t so openly view us as annoyances or, worse, as adversaries.

10. We love it when you’re humble enough (or brave enough) to give it to us straight—whether that means “I don’t know” or “Yes, as far as we can tell, you may have only another six months.” Come on, doc. Just act like a human being, and maybe we can bring back some of the love, or at least some of the trust, that we used to have in you.

Taxation is Not Slavery

[From 6/15/08, in response to a Walter Williams column equating taxation with slavery.]

To the editor:

Columns such as Walter Williams’ June 15 piece, “Taxation tantamount to slavery,” have become as common as they are predictable and tiresome. Of course, readers and voters eat this kind of stuff up. “Taxation is theft,” as the cliché goes, “it’s our money.” But such pandering does not come without a cost.

The notion that taxation is theft is extremely dishonest. Even the most ardent tax-hater accepts the need for national defense and law enforcement. These functions cost money: about 20 percent of the 2008 budget—31 percent of the non-social-security budget. You can’t swallow that and maintain that all taxes are bad. So let’s stipulate that the cost of these functions, at least, is not “your money.” It’s a legitimate charge for necessary services.

Now consider that your tax dollars also pay for scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labeling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, and national parks. Shouldn’t you have to pay for these things, too? You like having them, right? Pandering to the taxation-is-theft crowd simply encourages the peculiar delusion that these benefits should come for free.

No one enjoys paying taxes, me included. And of course we all want government to use tax money wisely and to avoid unnecessary spending. Is there a specific program you think is wasteful? Let’s get rid of it! But by attacking the very concept of taxation, columnists like Williams enable the public to indulge their worst impulses.

Tax Fairness

[From 5/24/08, in response to a column mocking government attempts at “fairness.”]

To the editor:

Paul Szydlowski (“’Fairness’ shouldn’t replace common sense”) is kidding, right?

In his bid to prove that tax fairness harms the U.S. economy, he can do no better than citing a tax cut in the early 1990s that “backfired” by putting yacht-makers out of business.

Come on. During the “unfair” 1990s (under Democrat Bill Clinton), the U.S. economy had one of its most successful periods in modern history. Under Clinton’s presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms. By the time he left office, America’s GNP equaled one quarter of the entire world economic output.

In addition, the unemployment rate dropped by half (to 4%, a 40-year-low) while the economy created some 15 million jobs. And the stock market grew even faster - by more than three times - creating thousands of millionaires among middle-class stockholders.

Clinton also left office with a huge and growing federal budget surplus.

And Szydlowski prefers the last eight years under GOP rule? Why? Because they’ve been more fair?

Anti-smoking Laws and Libertarians, Part 2

[From 5/23/08, in response to a letter opposing anti-smoking laws on libertarian grounds.]

To the editor:

I suppose John E. Simpson, Jr. (“Bars, restaurants are private places”) becomes angry when the Health Department inspects a restaurateur’s kitchen. That’s private property, after all. He probably thinks maximum occupancy laws and fire codes are onerous too. If customers want to patronize a fire trap, that should be their free choice. And he must really get enraged when the government forces businesses to serve people of all races. Why, a business should be able to do whatever it wants! Private property ownership! The paramount virtue!

Anti-smoking Laws and Libertarians

[From 5/18/08, in response to a column opposing anti-smoking laws on libertarian grounds.]

To the editor:

Eric Stein (“Smoking Debate Ignores the Rights of Private Property Owners,” May 18) opposes anti-smoking laws on the grounds that the government has no right to tell business owners what they may do on their own private property. Hmmm . . . where have I heard this argument before? Oh yes . . . it’s the same argument southern business owners made to deny service to black customers before civil rights laws forced them to do so.

Why should we expect the free market to solve this problem, as Stein suggests? It didn’t prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act.

I don’t especially like legislation such as the ban on smoking or other anti-discrimination laws. They are invasive, burdensome to enforce, and a fertile breeding ground for meddlesome busybodies. We have them for one simple reason: when we didn’t, American society arbitrarily denied equal treatment to entire classes of people.

To be consistent, Mr. Stein should oppose laws requiring businesses to serve people of all races. How ‘bout it, Mr. Stein? Want to repeal those laws, too?

Gas Prices/Personal Responsibility

[From 5/15/08, in response to a slew of letters bemoaning high gas prices]

To the editor:

Isn’t it interesting. The same people who fret about “the nanny state” and lecture others about personal responsibility are the very ones complaining the loudest about high gas prices and the mortgage crisis.

These folks consider any sort of spending on anything for the common good to be soft-headed and stupid. But now that their trophy houses and gas-guzzlers have become costly and inconvenient for them, they’re the first ones demanding government assistance.

Hey Mr. SUV, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to buy that 10 MPG tank you roll to work each day. Nobody forced you to buy that McMansion 40 miles from the office, either. If you’re giving all your money to Big Oil, you’re simply reaping the consequences of your own actions . . . right? Right?

Consider this a little lesson in personal responsibility.