The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1083834
C-8 Wednesday, Februar y 20, 2019 The Press-Dispatch OPINION Submit Letters to the Editor: Letters must be signed and received by noon on Mondays. Email: editor@pressdispatch.net or bring in a hard copy: 820 E. Poplar Street, Petersburg George Washington was lauded as "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his country- men," in the words of Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee. But even our nation's first president couldn't prevail over the desire for a three- day weekend. Washington's birthday, which falls on Feb. 22, was celebrat- ed for decades on the actual day. But then, according to the Histo- ry Channel's website, "the holiday became popularly known as Pres- idents' Day after it was moved as part of 1971's Uniform Monday Holiday Act, an attempt to create more three-day weekends for the nation's workers." The result: Our first president — as well as President Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday falls on this day — are simply swallowed up in the name "Presidents' Day" — which, the History Channel notes, "is now popularly viewed as a day to celebrate all U.S. pres- idents, past and present." That is, simply put, ridiculous. Are we seriously expected to put Washington on par with the scan- dal-ridden Warren G. Harding? Or place the Great Emancipa- tor on the same level as James Buchanan, whose inability to deal with the slavery ques- tion helped hurtle the nation to the brink of civil war? Yes, all Americans should have at least a passing acquaintance with all 45 occupants of the Oval Office. But only a few deserve to be celebrated. Head and shoul- ders above the rest are Washing- ton, who was indispensable to the creation of our union, and Lincoln, who saved it. Lincoln's roles in steering the country through the Civil War and in ending the scourge of slavery are well known — and rightfully so. But we sometimes forget that it was, in large measure, his deep understanding of the Constitution that enabled him to rise to such greatness at the moment of crisis. Take his view of the judiciary's role in our structure of gov- ernment. Lincoln, of course, deplored the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 1857 Dred Scott case, which denied full citizenship rights to A frican-Ameri- cans. But in express- ing his opposition, he affirmed the court's role as a co- equal branch of government: "The candid citizen must con- fess that if the policy of the gov- ernment upon vital questions and affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rul- ers, having, to that extent, practi- cally resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tri- bunal." Sharing with the next generation My Point of View by Dr. H. K. Fenol, Jr., M.D. So as I was mentioning in the re- cent columns I've shared, I have written letters to my grandchil- dren about the story of my life when I was growing up in my coun- try of origin. I shared items such as the names of my dad, my mom, my siblings, stories about our life as a family, stories about our schooling and higher education, stories about our celebrations of milestones of our life. Examples inclde: birth- days, parties, picnics, vacations, family gatherings etc. I then cop- ied some family pictures of our growing up to give some ideas to our grandkids of how we looked like when we were their age. So why am I sharing these sto- ries and pictures? Well, kind of simple. I once heard a story that if we do not share with the next generation our journey of life, it is like a library that burned and all its contents were lost and could no longer be retrieved. Funny, when I copied some of the pictures of our family during the late 40s and 50s, it brought back a flood of memories of our growing up years. I did not real- ize how nice I looked when I was younger. Hmmmm. Humility is al- ways a good virtue. One of the pictures I included was a family reunion of about 30 of our first and second cousins. We were in our toddler and early child- Set Yourself A fire At the end of last week's column, we left John Wesley in a state of discouragement. He felt his trip to the American Colonies had been a failure, but more importantly, he even doubted that he was "saved." It was February 1738 and now back in London, he had to report to the trustees of the Georgia colony why he had returned home. Dur- ing this time, Wesley preached in several Anglican churches in Lon- don, but was not invited back. However, God had not aban- doned John Wesley. Wesley had created a friendship with Peter Bohler, a former Lutheran who was now a Moravian minister. Bohler challenged Wesley's be- lief in "degrees of faith;" one per- son could have a "weak faith," while another a "strong faith." Bohler contended, "Faith came instantaneously, accompanied by complete assurance and three "freedoms;"freedom from sin, from fear, and from doubt. Wesley could not shake this challenge to his faith. He had ex- perienced episodes of doubt over the years and would write later his brush with death crossing the At- lantic increased his fear. God was working on Wesley to bolster and embrace faith. We will leave it to the academics and theolo- gians if he was "saved" or not, but Wesley was wrestling between the knowledge of faith and the actions of faith within himself. Let us not forget that Wesley was schooled in the traditions of the Anglican Church, which did not promote an "active faith." In modern Protestant terms, he had been "churched," but was not taught how to embrace and live out his faith. Bohler shared with Wesley the Moravian doctrine, "God can give that faith whereof cometh salva- tion in a moment." Wesley, while drying his tears, asked how he could attain such faith. What Wes- ley heard from Bohler was what he desperately wanted: "the assur- ance or 'witness' of the Spirit of God that Jesus Christ was his per- sonal savior, in more than belief. He want- ed that sense of inner peace, happiness, and joy." Wesley, the organiz- er of the Oxford Meth- odist classes, was be- ing led by the Holy Spirit by men of faith who resided outside of the Anglican Church who would lacked [as Jesus was accused] "letters." He had been challenged that faith was a "free gift that God would surely bestow . . . upon every soul who earnestly and perseveringly sought it." Wes- ley who kept a daily journal wrote, "I was now thoroughly convinced, and by the grace of God I resolved to seek it unto the end." One should always be careful what one asks for from God; you might receive it in abundance, and your entire life will become one of service and joy! The "conversion" of Wesley to an Points to Ponder by Rev. Ford Bond Set yourself afire Continued on page 9 Continued on page 9 Continued on page 9 Continued on page 9 Minority View by Walter E. Williams Marijuana, mental illness and violence Continued on page 9 Continued on page 9 Ten states and Washington, D.C., have legalized the recre- ational use of marijuana. Twenty- two other states, along with U.S. territories Puerto Rico and Guam, allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. Let's examine some hidden issues about marijua- na use. Before we start, permit me to state my values about medical or recreational use of any drug. We each own ourselves. If we choose to take chances with substances that can ruin our health, lead to death and otherwise destroy our own lives, that's our right. But we do not have a right to harm oth- ers in the process of harming our- selves. Alex Berenson is a graduate of Yale University, with degrees in history and economics. He deliv- ered a speech last month at Hill- sdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Stud- ies and Citizenship in Washing- ton, D.C., on the hidden dangers of marijuana use (http://tinyurl. com/yd933ocy). He told his audi- ence, "Almost everything that you think you know about the health effects of cannabis, almost every- thing that advocates and the media have told you for a genera- tion, is wrong." The active ingre- dient in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabi- nol, or THC. Marijua- na is most commonly prescribed for pain, but it's rarely tested against other pain re- lief drugs, such as ibuprofen. Last July, a large four-year study of Aus- tralian patients with chronic pain showed that cannabis use was as- sociated with greater pain over time. Marijuana, like alcohol, is too weak as a painkiller for people with terminal cancer. They need opiates. Berenson said, "Even can- nabis advocates, like Rob Kampia, who co-founded the Marijuana Pol- icy Project ... acknowledge that they have always viewed medical marijuana laws mostly as a way to protect recreational users." Marijuana legalization advo- cates sometimes argue that its use reduces opiate use. That is untrue. Berenson said, "The United States and Canada, which are the countries that have the most opioid use, also have by far the worst problem with ... cannabis." Mari - juana carries not on- ly a devastating phys- ical health risk but al- so mental health dan- gers. A 2017 National Academy of Medicine study found that "can- nabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk. ... Regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder." Also, a paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry last year showed that people who used cannabis in 2001 were almost three times as like- ly to use opiates three years later, even after adjusting for other po- Why America must be unified by principles Heritage Viewpoint by Edwin J. Feulner Pursuit of the Cure by Star Parker Observations Sowell Socialism has already hurt America Lucid Moments By Bart Stinson High speed, higher price President Donald Trump was principled and politically astute to address, in his State of the Union, the horrors taking place now in Venezuela, and then to declare: "Tonight we renew our resolve that America will never be a social- ist country." Venezuela is indeed a poster child for what happens when a na- tion's economic machinery falls under political control. Over the last five years, per The Wall Street Journal, Venezu- ela's economy shrank by 35 per- cent and poverty tripled from 48 to 87 percent. According to Gallup, 71 percent of Venezuelans say they can't af- ford food, 47 percent say they can't afford shelter, just 15 percent say they are satisfied with the avail- ability of quality health care, and 35 percent say they are satisfied with their standard of living. Thirty-six percent of Venezue- lans, 51 percent of those between 15 and 29, say they would leave the country permanently if they could. But if it is so clear that social- ism is a formula for economic di- saster, why does the idea still con- jure up support? In a Gallup poll of last year, 57 percent of Democrats, compared to 16 percent of Republicans, say they have a "positive view of so- cialism." Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says it's semantics. Krugman mocks Trump, saying that "there is essentially no one in American political life who advo- cates such things" as government control of industry, as is the case in Venezuela. We were a Nevada family when promoters first floated the idea of a high-speed magnetic-levitation ("maglev") rail project between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. It would travel across the desert at speeds up to 300 mph, arriving in Anaheim in 81 minutes. We were stoked. My grandsons would be surfers! But like most such pro- posals, this one couldn't find ad- equate financial backing. A more recent fast-rail propos- al would connect Los Angeles to San Francisco, 380 miles distant, at speeds up to 220 mph. This one found financing aplenty, but lacked adult supervision. The initial 2008 estimate was $ 33.6 billion in construction costs. That's what California voters agreed to. Completion was project- ed by 2028. By 2012, the California government said make that $53.4 billion. Then last year, they said— what the heck—make it $ 63.2 bil- lion, but it won't be finished un- til 2033. The boondoggle's other legs lift the overall cost to $ 98.1 billion. Former California Gov. Jer- ry "Moonbeam" Brown apparently wasn't cut out for managing large projects like this one. Current Gov. Gavin Newsome pulled the plug shortly after his inauguration last month. "There's been too little oversight," he said, "and not enough transparency." But "before you celebrate the sudden outbreak of common sense in California," as Investor's Busi- ness Daily cracked last week, Newsome made the astonishing announcement that he still wants to build the bullet train from Mer- ced (pop. 83,000) to Bakersfield (pop. 380,000). In between the two is Fresno (pop. 512,000). It's ex- tremely unlikely that these popula- tions will yield enough ridership to keep the rail system solvent, much less profitable. That's $10.6 billion down the drain, just in construc- tion costs, and then a system that will almost certainly bleed red ink deep into this century. Far be it from me to stigmatize mental illness, but this appears to be lunacy. Can we at least agree that we don't want our accountants to be lunatics? Still, it's California. If you live in one of the more sensi- ble states (which doesn't narrow it down very much), why should you care about the latest outbreak of moon-barking on the Left Coast? Because you've got $ 3.5 billion "skin in the game." Yes, your federal government has participated in the funding for this proposed project. It was supposed to be a matching grant, dollar-for-dollar. But by the end of last year, the state of California had spent $ 3 billion on the project, and only 15 percent was California money. The rest, a little over $2.5 billion, was your money. Democrat Newsome has clung to the Merced-to-Bakersfield black hole because quitting would trig- ger "sending $ 3.5 billion in feder- al funding back to Donald Trump." This is a disturbing rationale. An American public official would rather pour $10.6 billion of hard- earned taxpayers' money into a guaranteed failure than to return it to the people who may have bet- ter uses for it, maybe even an ur- gent need for it? But I have to thank Gov. New- some for provoking me to think that through. What could we do with $ 3.5 billion on the federal side? Congress only gave Trump $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new fencing at the border. That's $25 million per mile of fencing. At that rate, we could build another 140 miles of fence, for a combined to- tal of 195 miles fenced this year. But why does it cost so much? In 2007, when fencing was built un- der the Secure Fence Act of 2006, it cost $2.8 million per mile. By 2008, it cost $ 3.9 million per mile. I understand that labor costs es- calate, and perhaps we're build- ing a higher quality of fence now- adays. But if the fence cost $10 mil- lion per mile, we could build 137 miles of fence with the Congres- sional appropriation, and 420 miles of fence with the repaid California rail grant. Even at $12.5 million, we could build 110 miles with the Congressional appropriation and 280 miles with the repaid Califor-