Letters to the Editor Policy

Have To Take Issue

I have to take issue with the letter decrying the passage of Roe vs. Wade that appeared in your paper on January 26.

The writer refers to “53 million innocent babies [who] have died,” since the passage of this ruling, 38 years ago. She says nothing about the 115,000 babies and children who are currently in the Foster Care system, who are available for adoption. How many of these were orphaned vs. how many were just “unwanted,” we can’t know. What we can know is, these kids need homes. And there just aren’t enough people willing - or, in this economy, able - to take a[nother] child into their homes.

It seems that the women who have negative things to say about Roe vs. Wade are tied rather firmly to either evangelical/fundamentalist churches or the Roman Catholic church. They have been so firmly entrenched in their religion, that it is difficult for them to take a step back and see the longer view. There are urgent problems out there, and Roe vs. Wade is not one of them. Finding the money to buy or build, staff and maintain decent orphanages and foster care facilities is.

For instance, if the children in orphanages and in the Foster Care system were cared about as much as the non-existent, non-born children these people are crying about, perhaps there would be a new home and family for each. Any of us can write a letter. It takes more than writing letters, opposing this or that, to actually raise a needy child.

My point is, instead of complaining about issues that don’t exist, we should put our energies into something that does exist. Let’s take care of the children who exist and need our help. Ignoring these living children makes decrying Roe vs. Wade absolutely meaningless!

Sincerely,

Gail Rendle

Nicholson, PA

America First

Due to the severe cold weather we have experienced this winter, I was required to purchase 200 additional gallons of fuel oil for our place at Elk Lake. The bill was an astonishing $632. My place on Elk Lake is not terribly large, it is well insulated but keeping it heated is becoming a big burden, to say the least. I cannot imagine how many of you are managing all this. Besides trying to keep warm, you must pay for the fuel to commute to your job. How are you doing it? Have you given up eating? Are your children naked?

Since the Gulf spill when the Administration stopped most all drilling offshore, in the name of environmental protection, there have been, to the best of my knowledge, only two new drilling permits issued. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of acres of proven, onshore oil producing lands are still off limits. We, as a nation, have grown based on a petroleum economy. Our homes are scattered rather than concentrated as they are in Europe. Spiking fuel costs are crushing us all. Yet, our leadership is doing nothing to alleviate the problem. The EPA is still wrapping coal generation in knots. Gazillions of tax dollars are going to obscene ethanol production (contributing to rising food prices). If I didn’t know better, I would think that the goal was to reduce our energy use to that of some Sub-Sahara country. Gee, do you suppose that, in the name of Climate Change (nee: Global Warming), reducing the U.S. to third world status might actually be the goal after all? If there were few if any human beings to screw things up, we might revert to a Garden of Eden. I’ll bet there would be some nasty unintended consequences to that goal.

I think that, considering the world’s insatiable thirst for oil, our government could alleviate some of the burden on the working class by using the royalties available by leasing and drilling on federal (yours and mine) land and offshore to repeal all fuel taxes for Americans. Additionally, American produced oil from public lands should go only to Americans at affordable prices irrespective of the world markets. We’re in a world of hurt but we have the ability and resources to assure that we do not become internationally irrelevant. We just need a government that puts America First.

One last thought - gas producing lands are not evenly distributed among the citizens of Susquehanna County. Some are realizing fabulous monetary benefits. May I suggest that those of you who are doing really well contact your church Social Concerns Committees and make a very substantial donation to their fuel fund for the less well off. Let’s take care of our own.

Sincerely,

Joe McCann

Elk Lake, PA

Between The Tigers

Narrow roads clogged with bicycles, mopeds, and peddle carts, have given way to four-lane, side-by-side super highways with cloverleafs interchanges and overpasses. And Shanghai, once a city of seedy bars, nightclubs, now sprouts a forest of skyscrapers freighted by billionaire CEOs. It's the new China.

A monolithic nation of 1.3 billion people sprawling over a land mass of 3.6 million square miles. She boasts the world's largest army; 2.8 million men march under the red flag. An economic superpower growing at an average of 10 percent per annum for the past 20 years. Its treasury holds $900 billion in American Treasury IOUs. If China chose to sell then, she could turn the dollar into confetti and bring the U.S. to its knees.

Frightening? About as much as an ogre in a Grimm fairytale and with about as much substance. China. She's an imposing sight, a fierce tiger, but one without teeth.

Things are seldom what they seem, never more so than with China. The nation takes up a lot of real estate, but surprisingly it's second to the United States. Moreover, while 18 percent of America's land mass is arable, China has only 13 percent, yet it must meet the needs of a population four times that of the U.S.

And the awaking Asian giant is by no means monolithic. Centrifugal forces of almost 300 languages and 55 minorities argue against the perception of a nation in lockstep. But the most powerful force tearing at China's seams is homegrown capitalism.

There is a new, monied-class of free-wielding entrepreneurs in China. “To be rich is glorious,” is their slogan; their loyalty is to the yuan not to Mao.

As for its immense army, it is impressive but ineffective for national defense. Mao's dictum of having “more soldiers than bullets” is outmoded in an era of smart bombs, missiles, and tactical nukes. The army serves mostly to soak up excess manpower, lower unemployment, and temper civil disobedience.

Beijing is, however, making strides in modernizing its military. China unveiled its first stealth plane, the J-20 fighter, this year. But that's 30 years after the U.S. first stealth fighter. Moreover, the size of the J-20's radar signature is unknown as is China's ability to manufacture stealths to the required precision.

China spends an estimated $78 billion for defense. Granted, China under-reports the true figure for the same reason the U.S. low-balls its published defense budget. But putting aside who is the biggest liar, the U.S. outspends China by almost nine to one.

In short, China's military has a very long way to go before she unseats the U.S. as the world's reigning superpower.

Comparing China's economic power to the U.S. presents another disparity. China's GDP for 2010 was $5 trillion. That's about one-third of the U.S. GDP. And if the GDP is divided by the population's purchasing power, it is $7,500 per capita in China versus $47,000 in the U.S.

But what most find troubling is the Red Giant's stockpile of U.S. Treasuries. Is this the boot on the America's throat dictating foreign policy to China's whims? No, indeed. China needs the U.S. more than we need her. Here's why.

China must generate 17 million jobs a year just to maintain its current unemployment rate. However, she lacks a middle class that would absorb this productive capacity. To create jobs for this unemployed army, China's economy is by necessity export-driven. And the only market big enough and wealthy enough to consume their voluminous exports is the U.S.

So we buy China-made everything at rock-bottom prices and they, in turn, buy U.S. IOUs, which eventually are paid back in devalued dollars. (Who gets the better of this bargain?)

Lastly, what would happen if China decided to punish the U.S. by flooding the market with Treasuries? First, she would suffer a substantial financial loss. Second, her economy would collapse. Third, unemployment would go stratospheric followed by anarchy. The situation would be highly disruptive to the U.S. but completely catastrophic to China.

But waiting in the wings is another tiger and this one has teeth. This China has thrown off the shackles of a rickety, centrally-controlled economy run by an entrenched party faithful. She is a capitalistic dynamo with enormous potential and should not be underestimated.

But as long as the old China stays in power she will remain a secondary world power, always a bridesmaid and never a bride.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

Back to Top

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY
Letters To The Editor MUST BE SIGNED. They MUST INCLUDE a phone number for "daytime" contact. Letters MUST BE CONFIRMED VERBALLY with the author, before printing. Letters should be as concise as possible, to keep both Readers' and Editors' interest alike. Your opinions are important to us, but you must follow these guidelines to help assure their publishing.

Thank you, Susquehanna County Transcript

©