Previous 31 - 40 Next
Sugar was invented to be used as a preservative. Using sugar to preserve food makes it safer as the primary vector for food-borne illness is pathogens. It shouldn't be over-used, but that is true about many other things as well.
We've been in Germany for over 65 years. And Germany is stable, democratic, prosperous and at peace. Pres. Truman & Pres. Eisenhower were better than Pres. Obama. So was Pres. GW Bush. He won the Iraq War, got Iran to stop it's nuke program and Libya to give up their WMD and we had 4.5% unemployment until the Democrats, whom I suspect are your preferred politicians, took over Congress in 2007. Pres. Obama lost thousands of U.S. troops in Afganistan and for what? To lose that war, Iraq, & see Iran restart it's nuke program and have terrorists murder and rape a U.S. Ambassador in Libya? Pres. Obama inherited an economy with relatively low unemployment, low interest rates and low inflation and the best national security posture of any incoming President of my lifetime, and he blew it! - John Lepant Brighton CO
In response to:

Amazon Throwing the Book at Publishers

John C6 Wrote: Jun 12, 2014 10:22 PM
Gentle Readers, I too dislike Amazon albeit for reasons other than those listed by Mr. Tyrell. One option is to create your own Seller Account on Amazon and list & sell your items: books, CDs, etc. doing your own order fufillment. Mr. Tyrell or Hachette could designate a vendor to do that and they wouldn't keep customers waiting for fufillments. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Sullum, The facts here don't support your conclusions: 1. Thonetheva was selling drugs from the home. The police had the correct address. 2. These people were living with their relatives as their previous home had been destroyed by a fire. As they are meth sellers, it is reasonable to believe that the meth they were cooking started that first fire. 3. The biggest danger to that child and all of the other residents in that neighborhood was the cooking and selling of meth being done in that home. Bottom Line: Thonetheva is responsible for the harm done to his nephew, not the police, who acted responsibly. If you disagree, by all means invite meth dealers to cook their dope and sell out of your home. Please be certain that your neighbors agree to this first, as they will affected by the fire danger and the dealer peddling to their kids. I've asked this question before, and you never reply, as you are a moral coward, but I will ask again: " If you believe in the unrestricted sale and use of drugs, why not start with antibiotics? " Why not allow someone to purchase penicillen or tetracycline from a licensed and educated pharmicist without a prescription or any other restrictions? The pharmacist is well-qualified to assure the safety and quality of the antibiotics. If you don't believe antibiotics should be sold without reasonable regulation, then why do you hypocritically continue to assert the ludicrous proposition that people should be allowed to cook and sell meth without restrictions? Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
In response to:

Boko Haram Strikes Again Killing 48

John C6 Wrote: May 23, 2014 5:05 PM
Gentle Readers, BOKO HARAM uses cell phones to plan and execute attacks on innocent people. That's why we need the NSA. Proper oversight and control are critical to the proper management of the NSA, but we need them and the work they are doing. Those attacks could be carried out right here in the USA by just a few hundred people who could easily infiltrate our unpoliced borders. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Mitchell, The flaw in this analysis, Sir, is that it fails to consider: 1. Program effectiveness, and 2. Priorities. Obama has cut Defense and Law Enforcement, both Constitutionally mandated areas for Federal Spending while increasing spending on non-essential areas like Obamacare. We were better off without Obamacare. Every penny spent on that foolishness is wasted. More to the point: Obamacare is counter-productive as the onerous mandates and bureacracy will result in a reduction of available medical services for everyone: rich, middle class and poor. We're spending money to reduce services. The Obama Administration has the same policy for energy. It's called ' Demand Management ", which is a nice way of saying - Americans will get less. Our tax dollars are funding this. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Gentle Readers, Dear Prof. Morici, Your statement that " ..... some scientists may disagree ... ' is objectively untrue. If you go to www.petitionproject.org you will find a petition signed by over 31,000 scientists in the fields of the natural sciences stating that human CO2 emissions do not cause global warming. It's not ' some ' scientists, but scientists by the thousands who state that human CO2 emissions are harmless. That's one reason why policymakers in China and other countries refuse to subordinate their national interests and objectives to measures to reduce human CO2 emissions. Kindest Regards, John Lepant Brighton CO
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Skousen, The real problem with Prof. Pikettys thesis is that he fails to consider the differences in incomes and living standards for people living in capital intensive economies as opposed to those in labor intensive economies. Consider: An Earth Mover in the U.S. drives a bulldozer that costs $720,000.00 and is paid $5000.00 a month . His counterpart in Bangladesh uses a shovel that costs $10.00 and is paid $150.00 a month. If the capital goods owner is earning 10% on both investment, he will earn $1.00 a year on the shovel and $72,000.00 a year on the bulldozer. Thus, the ratio of returns to labor against capital in Bangladesh where the worker earns $1800.00 a year is 1800 to 1, whereas in the U.S. example, the capital goods owner gets $72,000.00 as compared to the wage earner at $60,000.00 . In the U.S., the capital goods owner earns 120% of the wages of the worker, whereas in Bangladesh the worker earns 1800 times as much as the capital owner. According to Prof. Piketty, the worker in Bangladesh is better off as there is a better ratio of returns to labor as opposed to capital. But, in which economy is the worker better off? The American worker earns more in 2 weeks than his Bangladeshi counterpart does in a year. The Bangledeshi spends his day doing back-breaking labor. While the American works hard at his job, it's not back-breaking. The capital intensive economy does give a larger return to the capital owner than the worker, but the worker has far better earnings and working conditions than in the labor-intensive economy. It should also be noted that the higher wages in the capital intensive economic system allow the wage earner to himself participate in capital goods ownership. He probably owns a house and a car, and purchases insurance which invests the money into capital goods, perhaps even the vehicle he operates at his job. He can have a retirement plan. The worker in the labor intensive economy is paid barely enough to subsist and has no insurance or savings or property to insure. Prof. Piketty also fails to consider the lack of utility in ownership of capital goods. Owning a bulldozer gives the owner no direct utility. It only allows for a more productive business endeavor. In capital intensive economies things such as flush toilets, telephones and home heating systems are common, used by both workers and capital owners. The capital owner may have a nicer home and car, but gets about the same utility from having running water and a flush toilet as his workers. Running water and toilets are luxuries in labor intensive economies. The capital goods owner who owns a railroad gains no personal utility from ownership of locomotives and railroad ties. If he drives down a highway in his Maserati listening to his favorite music CD, and his employee is driving in the lane beside him in a used Taurus listening to the same CD both purchased online, they get equal utility from the CD and the highway. The capital goods owner is generally considered to have a ' cooler ' car, but gains no more utility. Piketty should consider the differences in wages and working conditions, the relative ability to participate in captital goods ownership and the widespread and common availability of what are considered luxuries in labor intensive economies as compared to capital intensive economies. The solution isn't ' wealth redistribution ', ie. capital de-formation, rather, it is to encourage capital formation to raise living standards and wages for everyone, including those in labor intensive economies. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
are inaccurrate Need to proofread. My bad. - John
Gentle Readers, Dear Kibitzer, Indeed, there has been no warming for 17 years, and it's helpful for Prof. Morici and readeers here to understand why that's important. Computer Simulations predicted global warming would happen 20 years ago. It hasn't. Now, using those same computer models, some climatologists ( Not all of them. ) are predicting additional warming over the next 100 years. But if their predictions to date have not been correct, why should we make policy based on their predictions to the future? Prof Morici is an economist and business professor and would not accept predictions from an economic model whose predictions to this point have not proven true. Why then does he accept predictions from climate models who record to this date is inaccurate? Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Gentle Readers, Dear Mr. Doherty, Americans support proportional punishment, not capital punishment per se. We want the punishment to fit the crime. Unfortunately, with some crimes, capital punishment is fitting. To say that someone on death row is not guilty is not the same as to say they are innocent. Read Ann Coulters column here at TOWNHALL about the criminals who assaulted the Central Park jogger. It may be they didn't rape her ( someone else confessed to that crime ) , but there is no question they assaulted her and left her for dead. People who wind up on death row are pretty serious criminals. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
Previous 31 - 40 Next