Page 4 - Dunuba Sentinel 8-23-18 E-edition

Opinion
A4 | Thursday, August 23, 2018
In My Opinion
First Amendment does not Winclude security clearance
ith the recent kerfuffle are not, nor should over the First they be, bloggers, Amendment of the faceBook or u-tube
Fred Hall - Publisher Rick Curiel - Editor
Constitution perhaps it’s time we put both sides of the argument
into context. Former government officials complain loudly about
the cancellation of their security clearance as somehow violating their First Amendment right after they’ve literally lost touch with common sense. Anti-Trump media now claim that somehow he is infringing on their right to freedom of speech as well. Here is the First Amendment, pure and simple:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
It’s exactly that simple. Nowhere, within that very concise paragraph does it indicate that the issuance of
a security clearance is a God-given birthright. Millions of Americans do not have clearances and manage quite nicely. Their right to free speech is unimpeded. Nowhere therein does it indicate that when
an individual, private or public, is under attack verbally or otherwise from members of the free press, he is estopped from retaliation.
Government officials should, in our humble opinion, be routinely stripped of security clearances
once they vacate the position which required such a clearance. In the case of John Brennan, the furor being created reaches such levels
as to make one seriously question his ulterior motives. It would seem, more than anything, it is a resume enhancer for Mr. Brennan as he
sits in a pundits chair at MSNBC, a virulent anti-Trump television channel.
Among the others who appear slated for removal of security clearance is James Clapper who has a similar job as Brennan over at CNN. Following these two men, there’s
a long line of individuals from the FBI and Justice departments who have been fired or demoted. As far as most of the media who complain, I can only scratch my head because while trying to hide behind this very second amendment, they have lost all touch with objectivity. Front pages are often difficult to discern from opinion pages. Whatever happened to ascertaining and reporting who, what, when, where and why without the fingerprints of the writer all over the piece?
I once heard an old-time editor tell a young reporter, “ I don’t want to know what the hell you think were the underlying social issues, I just want to know what happened.” That’s still sage advice for today’s young reporters. Real news people
Vietnam Veterans Wall Ocauses us to remember
Fred Hall
posters. We fear the ethical line has been blurred for journalists since social media has provided un-vetted access to the masses who are
consumers of information. Today, it’s the number of “clicks” that is used to measure a writer’s work. Culturally and intellectually, that is society’s loss.
There is not, nor do we expect there will ever be, any sort of
repeal or modification of the First Amendment as penned by our Fore Fathers. The article is so succinctly written as to ward off politicization by those who seek victory at any cost. Be warned, though, they will try.
Moving right along while looking for a segue from the previous subject to this one; it appears that there probably isn’t one but we have to wonder anyway, why is that when
we elect our representatives they feel it’s imperative to write some new law or regulation. There already have to be the better part of 500 gun control laws on the books and yet, the opposition will not be happy without repeal of the Second Amendment. Name a subject and one will probably find the same case exists. When a new law or regulation passes an old one should be repealed!
“Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.”--Arcesilaus, Greek philosopher
“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”--Plato, Greek philosopher
“The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.”--Lao-Tzu, Chinese philosopher
These observations, throughout
the years, by renown philosophers who are obviously a helluva lot wiser than I, seem to epitomize the modern era dilemma with which our society is faced. We tend to elect lawyers
to represent us in government and, as one would expect, they pass laws or create commissions who appoint bureaucrats who, in turn, then produce rules and regulations, telling us how to live our lives. Law-abiding people do every thing possible to live by those rules, while scofflaws do not. It’s just that simple.
The next time some says to you, “There ought to be a law...” think about it for a while. It’s possible that is the very last thing we need is one more law!
But, as always, that’s only one man’s opinion.
Fred Hall is the publisher of the Sentinel.
Guest Column
Pro ting o poison
T
say about other pesticides, many of which are poisonous to humans, glyphosate was safe.
It’s not controversial to claim that some pesticides are toxic to humans. After all, they were created to kill plants, insects, and other living things. Some pesticides are so reliably toxic that people have used them to commit suicide. Others may cause cancer or other diseases if you’re exposed to them over time.
But glyphosate? There was nothing to say against it. It did its job, killing any plant it came into contact with, and then it broke down into harmless byproducts quickly. That was it.
A new court ruling calls this understanding of glyphosate’s “safety” into question.
Allegations that glyphosate caused cancer started years ago. When I first heard them, I was skeptical. After all, this was the flagship herbicide sold by Monsanto. It wasn’t just used by farmers but by homeowners and gardeners. You could buy it at Home Depot.
Of course all of the tree huggers wanted to take down glyphosate. It would be a powerful proof that they were right, pesticides are all toxic, and their opponents were wrong.
I didn’t blindly jump onto that bandwagon. This was something that could be examined cautiously, I hoped, with science.
When I heard about the recent court decision, I approached it with hesitance. I didn’t want to believe a story that may not be true.
But I also knew that California had listed glyphosate as a chemical “known to the State of California to cause cancer” a little over a year ago. There must be credible evidence that it does.
Germany is talking about banning glyphosate in the near future, and the European Union may consider doing so down the road.
The court found that glyphosate contributed substantially to the plaintiff’s cancer and awarded him $289 million in
damages. It also found that glyphosate’s manufacturer, Monsanto, acted with “malice” by failing to warn consumers about the product’s risks.
Put another way, Monsanto knew that glyphosate was not safe. The company profited from the product’s sales while
covering up its toxicity.
For me, this changes everything. It
he first thing I heard about glyphosate — the active ingredient in the popular weed killer Roundup — was that it was non-toxic. Whatever you wanted to
Jill Richardson
doesn’t take an in-depth understanding of the science to understand a cover up. If the company that made the product found out it wasn’t safe — if they believed
their own evidence — and then chose to hide it, that’s something to worry about.
That’s like tobacco companies hiding their knowledge that cigarettes cause cancer for decades while millions of Americans continued to smoke — and die.
The glyphosate case illustrates larger issues. Our regulation of chemicals still isn’t where it needs to be. Many chemicals on the market simply haven’t been
evaluated for safety. Surely many of them are safe — but what about the ones that aren’t?
An Obama-era bill would have started requiring more chemicals to be tested and proven safe... and the Trump administration partially rolled that requirement back.
Arlene Blum of the Green Science Policy Institute offers a useful approach by highlighting six classes of chemicals most likely to cause harm. By focusing testing and enforcement on the chemicals with the highest risk, we could aim to strike the right balance between keeping ourselves safe and allowing useful chemicals onto the market.
We should no longer put a company’s right to make profits from selling chemicals above the public’s right to safety.
OtherWords columnist Jill Richardson is pursuing a PhD in sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She’s written extensively about food and the environment. Distributed by OtherWords.org.
n Monday I had the both good and privilege of attending a bad.
meeting for the Western The memories
Regional Vietnam Memorial Wall Committee. It was held at the Dinuba Memorial Hall, a place I’ve been in countless times throughout my years here in Dinuba.
I decided to attend the meeting
to get an update on the permanent Vietnam Memorial Wall, as it enters its second phase. Little did I know that the meeting would forever change the way I look at the place so many of us have come to call the Memorial Hall.
I expected a handful of people
at Monday’s meeting, a weekly gathering of the committee. So I was surprised to see a room of nearly 20 individuals, all eager to share the story of how the wall came to be.
What has been done in bringing the wall to Dinuba is nothing short of spectacular. We hear often of efforts made throughout the nation to honor our military. Whether it’s the Honor Flight, Veterans Parade or Wounded Warrior projects, there is one common thread that flows through each effort – remembering.
One of the greatest things we hold valuable as human beings is the ability to recollect. Our memories provide the backdrop for our lives,
our Veterans have, though difficult for most to process, are also the memories that helped build this great nation.
That meeting brought to life something very
important in recognizing our service members. Each name on that wall is a memory. It’s a relative, a friend, a neighbor and a loved one. Each one is a reason.
It’s a reason why we still fight for freedom. The reason why our service members still fight also comes down to a name – yours.
What an incredible honor it is to have such a magnificent display of memories here in our hometown. If you haven’t seen it yet I strongly recommend you do. Doing so may cause you to remember why we remember.
Look for an extended article on the wall in next week’s Sentinel.
Rick Curiel is the editor of the Sentinel. He can be contacted at editor@thedinubasentinel.com
Rick Curiel
The Dinuba Sentinel welcomes submissions of letters to the editor on topics of local relevance. Word limit is 350. Letters are considered once per month for each submitter.
Letters must include the author’s name, phone number and address for verification. Mail to 145 South L Street,
Dinuba, CA, 93618, or e-mail to editor@thedinubasentinel. com.
Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity. Libelous letters will not be printed.
Guest columns will be considered for publication - E-mail
editor@thedinubasentinel.com. Word limit is 650.
Join the discussion