Take Them Back to Dear Old Blighty
I couldn’t help but sigh “Right on!” and “No kidding!” at every
sentiment in Michael C. Moynihan’s “Take Them Back to Dear Old
Blighty” (April). As an American who spent the last two and a half
years living in Germany and traveling in other European countries,
I was irritated to be stamped as culturally inferior to locals and
ex-pats whom I met overseas. I repeatedly found myself in
conversations with people extolling the superiority of life in
Europe and the sophistication of the meanest German tough over the
most educated American. Not wanting to compound the stereotype, I
usually declined to involve myself in those discussions.
What is more fascinating to me is how readily American culture
is embraced in Europe. Any argument over how awful and crude we are
is immediately lost when the individual making those claims is
stuffing himself with McDonald’s on his way to the latest Hollywood
bubblebum-boobfest while listening to three-chord rock ’n’ roll on
his iPod.
Guillermo Garcia
via the Internet
The New Age of Reason
I was heartened to read
Ronald Bailey’s article about the end of the Fourth Great
Awakening, the period of religious fervor that has been infecting
our political life for the last three decades (“The New Age of
Reason,” April).
But I have to take exception to one of Bailey’s criticisms: “Smoking bans are proliferating, although the percentage of Americans who believe secondhand smoke is very harmful has not budged from around 55 percent since 1997.” It’s not a question of belief. Public policy needs to be implemented on the basis of data and evidence, not uninformed opinion.
There are many readily available sources on the deleterious
effects of secondhand smoke, but let me quote just one, the 2006
U.S. surgeon general’s report: “The scientific evidence is now
indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a
serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death
in children and nonsmoking adults.” The report provides plenty of
evidence to substantiate this claim.
Ian Dodd
Culver City, CA
In “The New Age of Reason,” Ronald Bailey suggests that John Harvey
Kellogg invented corn flakes because their blandness tended to
reduce passions. As a student of the period I was aware that
Kellogg, like many reformers of the era, campaigned against
“self-abuse,” but I had never heard that tied to the invention of
corn flakes. The more typical history is associated with another of
Kellogg’s obsessions: chewing. (He coined the term
fletcherize to honor his friend Horace Fletcher.)
Kellogg’s invention of wheat flakes came while he was looking for a
way to make grains easier to digest for his patients who had
difficulty chewing.
In an interesting case of someone being right for the wrong
reason, it turns out that avoiding heavily spiced foods was a good
idea: Before refrigeration and modern preservatives spice was often
used to hide spoilage. Avoiding spicy foods made it easier to
recognize the rancid taste.
James Foster
Beaverton, OR
Ronald Bailey replies: As far as secondhand smoke
is concerned, I don’t think I could say it any better than my
colleague Jacob Sullum’s response to the surgeon general’s report,
published on reason
online: “There is no evidence that brief, transient exposure to
secondhand smoke has any effect on your chance of developing heart
disease or lung cancer. The studies that link secondhand smoke to
these illnesses involve intense, long-term exposure, typically
among people who have lived with smokers for decades.”
He also wrote, “Whether smoking bans are a good idea is a question not of science but of values, of whether we want to live in a country where a majority forcibly imposes its preferences on everyone else or one where there is room for choice and diversity.” In a tolerant, pluralistic society, you allow that choice and diversity to flourish by letting business owners set their own rules for who may smoke on their property.
Writer on the Storm
Bill Kauffman’s
otherwise enjoyable interview with Carl Oglesby (“Writer on the
Storm,” April) was deeply marred by Oglesby’s blasé slander of
cowboys. George W. Bush’s “handlers,” Oglesby said, “grasped that
there is a basic collision between the neo-Union and the
neo-Confederacy. The Civil War is not over; its issues continue to
echo. Bush II emerges from that process. He is a Cowboy, as I use
that term, and represents the movement of the Confederacy from the
East to the West.”
Drawing from seemingly nothing more than Hollywood
preconceptions, Oglesby tied ranch workers to the Confederacy,
George Bush, and other black holes of ill repute. Anyone who has
earned a buck in the saddle is fully vested in the
live-and-let-live philosophy, the very foundation of libertarian
logic. Bush and other Connecticut rednecks are not.
Guy Smith
Alameda, CA
Whatever Happened to Tax Cuts?
David Weigel
(“Whatever Happened to Tax Cuts?,” March) quotes a spokesman for
former presidential contender Mike Huckabee saying, “If you’re a
CEO making $20 million, your biggest concern is not marginal tax
rates.” The question that needs to be asked by Huckabee, the Club
for Growth, and others is “why?”
The easy answer is the concept of “take-home pay.” Without actually holding a check in your hand for your pay, and writing a check for your taxes, it is easy to miss the percentage you are paying. If you do not look at your pay stub closely, you become accustomed to what you are receiving “after taxes” instead of pre-tax. Out of sight, out of mind. People deserve to be aware of the amount of money that is being spent in Washington.
Yet another example of the corrosive effect of “take-home pay”
is that taxpayers are excited to get a tax refund when they should
be upset that they have given Washington a zero interest loan for
up to a year. Similarly, the idea of employers “paying half” of
some taxes is merely a trick to disguise your true tax rate. For
anyone who cares about transparency in government, or anyone who
cares about the size of government, ending the concept of
“take-home pay” by eliminating withholding is an idea whose time
has come.
Airot Parker
via the Internet
CORRECTION: “The Cult of the Presidency” (June) implied that the
exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act enacted in late 2006, which
made it easier to use the military to “restore public order and
enforce the laws” after a Katrina-style disaster, were still in
effect. In fact, they were repealed in January 2008.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245