Of HIV and condom effectiveness

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood said, “The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the whites, is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”

Her principles continue to this day — as is evident with the location of Planned Parenthood clinics in poor neighborhoods, and the disproportionate elimination of black babies. Moreover, they are also imposed on an unwilling population in Africa. Mr. Larry Edwards recently criticized the Vatican concerning the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa but rejects scientific evidence. 

According to the latest research, condom promotion is ineffective for anything but the lowering of the rates of AIDS in concentrated high-risk groups like homosexual men in San Francisco or prostitutes in Bangkok. Condoms have never been shown to reduce the HIV infection rates and deaths in general-population epidemics like those in sub-Saharan Africa.

Paradoxically, the more condoms AIDS activists throw at Africa, the more widespread the disease has become. (Despite the highest number of condom availability, Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Kenya have the highest AIDS rates.)

In 1991, Uganda had one of the highest adult HIV infection rates in the world, with 15 percent of all adults in the country infected. Ten years later, the HIV rate was reduced to 5 percent because the vast majority of Ugandans rejected the use of condoms.

What was effective is described in the Nov. 27, 2004, issue of The Lancet, where more than 150 of the world’s leading AIDS scientists and experts cited three interventions scientifically known to prevent AIDS: 1) abstinence, 2) being faithful and 3) using condoms — they argue that the use of condoms clearly comes last and should be promoted as a first-line defense only to those in extremely high-risk groups, such as commercial sex workers.

Margaret Barton
Anacortes


Jews very careful with translations

In relation to comments by Mike Mitchell about the translation of the Bible, these manuscripts have been translated many times by different scholars. If Mr. Mitchell is correct, the differences would be very great, but there are no significant differences.

There are many translations of ancient writings, even picture writing on the walls of Egyptian tombs, also the cuneiform writing of ancient Mesopotamia. Are all of these “deceptive”?

The language of first century Israel was Hebrew. This is shown for one thing, by the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls, written at about that time, by Jews for Jews, are in the Hebrew tongue. Hebrew is a sacred language to the Jews. They had a period of mourning for the Greek translation (Septuagint) made about 300 B.C. in Alexandria.

This was made at the order of King Ptolemy who wanted a Greek translation for his library. The Jews there had no choice when the king ordered it. In 1948, the language of the new state of Israel was immediately made Hebrew, showing its great importance.

The accurate preservation of the Hebrew text is shown by the fact that the book of Isaiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls is not significantly different from the next oldest manuscript made in 800 A.D., a spread of 1,000 years.

As for when the New Testament writings were done, there is a statement in Hebrews 10:11 saying, “Every priest stands (present tense) daily offering sacrifices,” showing that the writing was done before the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

John 5:2 says, “There is (present tense) in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool … which has five porticoes.” There were no porticoes after 70 A.D. Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived at that time, and whose writings were preserved, says that the whole site was completely leveled.

Louis W. Salvesen
Mount Vernon


Can’t drill our way out of trouble

To drill or not.

First things first.

The U.S. has 2 percent of the world’s proven oil yet uses 25 percent of what’s produced.

The logical conclusion is that we cannot possibly drill our way out of this problem.

If you still want to drill, let’s drill the 63 million-plus acres already leased by the oil companies — including the naval reserve in Alaska, which has billions of barrels of proven reserves capped off and waiting to be recovered.

The truth is that the oil companies are sitting on all of this leased land just waiting for it to go up in value rather than trying to increase supply. This oil belongs to “We the people,” but we let Big Oil walk away with it for about 12 percent of market price.

It’s not a red/blue issue; it’s something we’ve allowed to go on for decades.

We need to find alternatives, and the best way to finance that is to bring the troops home from around the world.

Chuck Glass
Sedro-Woolley


Domestic energy growth needed

How expensive must gas become before Congress accepts that conservation and alternative energy are not enough? We are sitting on enormous energy reserves that can support our growing population and a prosperous economy, but we refuse to touch them.

Candidate of change Obama has dredged up two failed Carter-era policies: a windfall profits tax (that consumers and stockholders will pay since corporations are legal fictions), and a rebirth of the Synfuels fiasco, where bureaucrats tried unsuccessfully to invent new technologies.

Since he has said that the main problem with high gas prices is that they rose too quickly, perhaps he doesn’t really care that these approaches won’t work.

McCain’s proposal for drilling in the outer continental shelf and building nuclear plants is a modest step in the right direction. He understands that an effective energy policy must actually include producing more energy as well as conservation and research.

Critics say we can’t drill our way out of this crisis, that developing new supplies will take years. True enough, but it took 20 years of focusing exclusively on conservation and alternative technologies to create this mess, and we can’t expect to solve it overnight.

Still, ending the bans on domestic drilling, accessing shale oil, using clean coal technologies and starting again on nuclear power would send a powerful signal to the markets that we intend to make energy affordable again, and that alone would help.

Others say that oil companies have access to thousands of acres and are not drilling, proving they are not interested in finding more energy. If they really believed that, they would have no objection to opening up new areas — because, by their logic, the oil companies wouldn’t want to drill there either.

Tell your elected representatives to remove the roadblocks to domestic energy growth now.

Mark Lijek
Anacortes


Governments’ illogical decisions

Where is the logic? Government entities can, and do, take a family home, property or livelihood for any enterprise they deem a priority for the common good, thereby getting an increase in the tax base. We hear no concern for those whose property has been confiscated.

Government entities can, and do, prevent permits from being issued for enterprises that are certain to assist in saving the economic health of our entire country — such as certain ventures in logging, drilling for oil and natural gas exploration — for fear doing so might annoy a caribou deer, a bird or a fish.

Go figure!

Jeanne Rue
Mount Vernon


Death penalty a flawed method

Regarding the June 14 letter “Victims’ lives of are greater value”:

The question raised wasn’t about comparing the value of one life to another; it was about the value of the life of an innocent person. Regardless of whether that person is a victim or the wrongly accused — for the sake of argument, we can assume both are of equal value. Abortion and the guilty are not relevant to the question.

It took 26 years for the evidence establishing the innocence of Mr. Logan to come out. Had Mr. Logan received a death sentence, reckless judgment such as that represented in Mr. Ellsworth’s statement (“Also we need to actually and quickly execute murderers”) would have left Mr. Logan long dead before his innocence was revealed. 

And Mr. Ellsworth’s statement “Think of the money that would save” implies that he considers the wrongly accused expendable and their lives worth sacrificing for the pettiness of vengeance and the fulfillment of one’s greed.

The question of capital punishment isn’t as clear as Mr. Ellsworth would suggest and his view seems clouded by rage. As one who is not completely opposed to the death penalty, I might suggest we consider allowing the convicted murderer to choose between life in prison and death by execution. If I were facing life in prison, I would likely choose death. But I suspect that many in the religious community, while comfortable assuming their god’s exclusive right of vengeance, would object to an individual’s right to choose their own death over a lifetime of suffering.

Until we can establish guilt beyond the slightest doubt and assure that no wrongly accused person will be subjected to execution, the death penalty remains a flawed method of punishment; one proved to have little effect as a deterrent.

Patrick K. Goff
Sedro-Woolley


Five ‘liberal’ high court justices?

Carl Loeb’s letter on June 21 complains about Congress shooting down oil companies’ request for offshore drilling. I guess Mr. Loeb believes the oil companies are asking for this out of a sense of public duty, and that this might ease our pain at the pump. These are the same oil companies, that while recording unprecedented, record profits, have staunchly refused to build even one new refinery.

This country has known for more than 30 years that fossil fuels will not last forever. Instead of moving to reduce our dependence on these fuels, our consumption per person has gone up every year.

Mr Loeb is also upset about the extension of habeas corpus protection by five “liberal” Supreme Court justices to alleged terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay. Whether the decision is right or wrong, I would challenge him to name five liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito are all conservatives appointed by Republican presidents. Stevens, who votes both ways, was appointed by President Ford.

The fact that what is inarguably the most conservative leaning Supreme Court in a century rendered this decision sort of refutes your argument, Mr. Loeb.

Joe Macdonald
Anacortes


SVH, focus more on economy

I would like to see some stories about our nation’s economy, such as inflation and oil prices. On C-SPAN, I have followed several stories about the current oil market speculation.

• A former commissioner of the Commodities Commission was on C-SPAN for an hour long interview and call-in TV program. He stated that the current oil prices could be reduced by one-third if Congress investigated and made some reasonable regulations. He stated that it has been difficult to get the attention of Congress and the public.

• I get nontechnical newsletter of Economics Professor Peter Morici of the University of Maryland. Morici has been saying almost the same thing for months.

• The other day, I watched a C-SPAN program: “Hearing to examine whether market speculation is inflating the price of the crude oil, and whether Congress needs to improve regulatory oversight.” I had a good opinion of the panel members and the congressmen. Skagit Valley Herald staff could watch this complete program on the C-SPAN Web site.

I think that the Skagit Valley Herald reading public has an appetite for this subject —probably a brief summary — in plain language. I’ve never taken a class in economics, but I could follow the discussion. Why? Because some of the congressmen asked the panel members to restate their explanation in plain language.

Rich Vinyard
Anacortes