Vaccine choices being taken away
On Aug. 26, Medscape, a network information source for physicians, in hyping up the 131 cases of measles reported in the U.S. with the aim of scaring people into greater acceptance of the vaccine, stated that 112 of the cases were either unvaccinated or did not have firm immunization records. So does this mean that 19 of the cases had been vaccinated?
Here is another glossed-over fact: 17 of the direct cases were imported. In other words, they had measles when they “got off the boat.” And 99 cases were tied to being contacts of these 17. In this small world, I don’t think we will have much success in preventing importation of any communicable disease. Neither do I think this will alarm thinking, loving parents sufficiently that they will unquestionably accept the admonition to immunize, until there is open, honest dialogue among the Centers for Disease Control, the American Academy of Pediatrics, vaccine manufacturers and the many researchers questioning the effects of multiple vaccines on immature immune systems.
Until this openness comes, none of us can be discerning and able to decide what is best for our precious little ones. These choices are being taken away from many parents in states which mandate a tie between complying with an arbitrary immunization schedule and school attendance, sort of a reverse “no child left behind” policy.
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D., Polson
Letters about Palin full of hate
It’s humorous and pathetic at the same time to read the letters to the editor coming from the left attacking Sarah Palin.
Here we have a woman who is to be admired, respected, loved and honored. A loving wife and mother, former mayor, governor of a state and now a candidate for the vice presidency of the United States. A woman who isn’t perfect, like some of the letter-writers.
Now, if you are naive you might think that the feminists, who I pity for many of their pathetic ideas, would rejoice that a woman has been so successful in breaking the glass ceiling. Feminism isn’t and never has been about women as much as it is about the left-wing ideology. If you remember, Sarah paid homage to both Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro for cracking the glass ceiling. Sarah represents, to me, many qualities in a woman, wife, mother, human being and politician that I admire and respect.
So, to the far left, keep sending in your hate-filled letters so we can look deeply into your hearts.
Mark King, Missoula
Palin’s views too limited
Sarah Palin’s VP candidacy has been declared inspiring and her winning demeanor a breath of fresh air. Still, we must evaluate her judgment and her capability to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. Two cautionary items are available: her daughter’s pregnancy and the recent birth of her fifth child.
The pregnancy clearly shows the power of “abstinence only” sex education. It is a foolish tactic and a stupid strategy. ’Nuf about that.
Palin knew, or should have known, the likelihood of genetic defects increases when women pass 40. Taking the “pill” for the last few years of fertility is prudent, especially considering how many “replacements” a partnership already has on hand.
To her credit, Palin has accepted her new, difficult responsibility that might outlive her. Meanwhile, the daughter and fiance have promised to be more responsible. Partly, those acceptances appear based on religious choices. However, Palin also appears to want all citizens, religious or otherwise, to live according to the Palin mode of birth non-control. That is clearly not appropriate in regard to our secular Constitution and the religious freedom, and freedom from religion, it gives to all citizens. Palin’s view is too limited for national application.
Constitution Article VI includes, “... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office ... ” Persistent rumors about Obama’s being non-Christian plus the religious “right” insistence on constitutionalizing their moral concepts act as informal religious tests. Those people are not patriots. They are dupes who would abandon the very Constitutional guarantees that enable exercise of their own religion.
I see flaws in Palin’s judgment. She may be willing to accept the consequences of her own judgmental errors but I am greatly dis-enthused about her making poor or inappropriate decisions that I must then live with.
Don Michels, Missoula
Liberals threaten freedom of speech
Sept. 8’s letter from Bill Carey, presumably our county commissioner, calling for the Missoulian to “pull” Mallard Fillmore because of “recent attacks” on the teaching profession is just another in a long line of tactics by liberals to censure and destroy anything with which they don’t agree. It’s a comic strip for heaven’s sake! Hey, I once in a while chuckle at Doonsbury. It’s therapeutic to laugh at yourself and those who you admire once in a while. Liberals take themselves too seriously and anyone who should disagree or tout another point of view is “repugnant.”
Carey’s condemnation is not an isolated incident by overzealous liberals. Over the past several days a friend and I have separately gone shopping at a major big-box store off Reserve Street and observed the same thing. As an avid reader, I always drift by the book section. Curiously, someone who disagreed with several books critical of Barack Obama covered them with others in the stack so they couldn’t be seen. Again, another liberal is at play trying to censure and destroy.
The threat to freedom of speech from liberals knows no boundaries. Because liberals despise conservative talk radio they wish to re-introduce the so-called Fairness Doctrine in Congress which would require station managers to provide equal time for liberal talk show hosts. Air America, a liberal network, has been a bankrupt failure because no one listens to it and few buy advertisements. So another way to silence conservative thought is contemplated.
Should the writer of the Mallard letter be our county commissioner, then the pattern has taken a more ugly turn. Politicians have no real private lives and for one to suggest that the Missoulian pull a comic strip because of its political content is a baldfaced attempt at censorship.
Thomas P. Ross, Missoula
Republicans are blocking solutions
These occasional people who write in and say that the economic and other problems we’re facing now can’t be the Republican’s fault because “the Democrats have been in charge of Congress since 2006” just amaze me.
Do these people have any idea how Congress works? Do they ever actually pay attention to the voting in Congress?
For instance, have they noticed that when the Democrats have tried to do something, the Republicans have been able to block it because it takes 60 votes for the Democrats to override the Republican obstinacy? Have they noticed that the Democratic majority is not big enough to give them the 60 needed votes, and so the Democrats can’t pass legislation unless enough Republicans cross the aisle to vote with them? Have they noticed that Bush is still there to veto what the Democrats have been able to pass, and then that the Democrats have to muster the 60 votes all over again to overcome the veto?
Or do they just not have the faintest idea what’s been going on, and they just prefer to abide with uninformed and ignorant opinions?
Which is it, I wonder?
Bill Clarke, Missoula
Racial covenants void, unenforceable
The front page of this past Sunday’s Missoulian (Sept. 7) carried an exten-sive article on the racial covenant contained in the recorded covenants which affect the Farviews development.
The community need not be concern-ed about that provision because it is absolutely void and unenforceable. In 1948, three years after the Farviews covenants were recorded, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Shelley v. Kraemer. In that opinion the court struck down, as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a recorded covenant affecting property in St. Louis which prohibited “any person not of the Caucasion race” as well as anyone “of the Negro or Mongolian race” from either owning or occupying any part of the affected property. The court determined that “in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws and that, therefore, the action of the state courts cannot stand.”
The courts have been consistent in invalidating racial covenants. In Barrows v. Jackson, in 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can-not give money damages to a seller of real estate who breaches such a cov-enant by selling to a non-white.
A federal trial court in the District of Columbia subsequently prohibited the D.C. recorder from even recording a covenant containing racial restrictions.
Once covenants such as those affecting Farviews have been recorded, they remain on the land records, but title insurance policies which in-sure title to real estate now routinely contain a provision which states that the title company does not insure any racial covenant which purports to affect the property.
Racial covenants relating to real estate may be safely ignored. Under present law they are simply an historic anachronism reflecting a long past era when societal sensibilities were more intolerant than they are now.
Chuck Willey, Adjunct professor of law, Missoula
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)