www.dailycorinthian.com
Reece Terry, publisher
Opinion
Mark Boehler, editor
4A • Saturday, April 20, 2013
Corinth, Miss.
Letter to the editor
Catfish inspections should be done by USDA, not the FDA To the editor: I’m writing to express my outrage and frustration at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Obama Administration. They are publicly claiming that the USDA catfish inspections are a “duplicative program”, and should be eliminated. This irresponsible political nonsense is not only incorrect, it is insulting to those of us who are a part of the Mississippi catfish industry. The costs referenced in the GAO report are simply wrong. No funds have been spent to date on USDA catfish inspections because the program, as outlined in the 2008 Farm Bill, has not yet been implemented. Furthermore, if catfish inspections are moved from the Food and Drug Administration to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as the farm bill requires, there will be no overlap with other federal food inspection programs. Moving catfish inspections to the USDA is a consolidation, not a duplication of inspection programs. The Catfish Farmers of Mississippi support USDA catfish inspections because we know the Food and Drug Administration provides insufficient safeguards for the American consumer. The USDA already inspects all other agriculture. Aquaculture is agriculture — therefore it only makes sense to transfer inspection of catfish from FDA to USDA. By FDA’s own admission, they inspect a shockingly low percentage of the seafood coming into the U.S. According to the GAO, in 2009, FDA tested only about 0.1 percent of all imported seafood products for drug residues. The U.S. Government has a duty to maintain the safety of our nation’s food supply. Preventing USDA from inspecting catfish may expose consumers to products that originate from countries who do not abide by the same strict safety standards as we do. It’s no secret that importers bringing foreign fish into the U.S. are using their deep pockets to cloud this issue. Our message is simple: U.S. consumers deserve the best inspection of its food supply, and USDA is the best agency to accomplish that goal. Shorty Jones 2013 Mississippi Catfish Farmer of the Year Glen Allan, Miss.
Prayer for today Father, show us how your principles teach us that time spent reading the Word, meditating upon it and applying it to our lives make a vital difference in our Christian walk. Amen.
A verse to share “And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” — Acts 16:9
Sound Off Policy Effective immediately, the Daily Corinthian Sound Off policy will be the same as its Letter to the Editor Policy. Sounds Offs need to be submitted with a name, address, contact phone number and if possible, e-mail address, for author verification. The author’s name and city of residence will be published with the Sound Off. Sound Offs will only accepted from those who wish to have their names published with their opinion. All other Letter to the Editor rules apply for Sound Offs.
Letters Policy The Opinion page should be a voice of the people and reflect views from a broad range in the community. Citizens can express their opinion in letters to the editor. Only a few simple rules need to be followed. Letters should be of public interest and not of the ‘thank you’ type. Please include your full signature, home address and telephone number on the letter for verification. All letters are subject to editing before publication, especially those beyond 300 words in length. Send to: Letters to the editor, Daily Corinthian, P.O. Box 1800, Corinth, Miss. 38835. Letters may also be e-mailed to: letters@daily corinthian.com. Email is the preferred method. Personal, guest and commentary columns on the Opinion page are the views of the writer. “Other views” are editorials reprinted from other newspapers. None of these reflect the views of this newspaper.
Gun control advocates on fact-free crusades Amid all the heated, emotional advocacy of gun control, have you ever heard even one person present convincing hard evidence that tighter gun control laws have in fact reduced murders? Think about all the states, communities within states, as well as foreign countries, that have either tight gun control laws or loose or non-existent gun control laws. With so many variations and so many sources of evidence available, surely there would be some compelling evidence somewhere if tighter gun control laws actually reduced the murder rate. And if tighter gun control laws don’t actually reduce the murder rate, then why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention? Have the media outlets that you follow ever even mentioned that some studies have produced evidence that murder rates tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws? The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws. In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost van-
ished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book Thomas “Guns and Sowell Violence” by Joyce Lee Hoover Institution Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric. What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter. The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them. Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives, and never faced lifethreatening dangers, nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do
something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes. Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates. Restricting the magazine capacity available to lawabiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not lawabiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first. Someone would have to be an incredible sharpshooter to fend off three home invaders with just seven shots at moving targets. But seven is the magic number of bullets allowed in a magazine under New York State’s new gun control laws. People who support such laws seem to blithely assume that they are limiting the damage that can be done by criminals or the mentally ill -- as if criminals or mad men care about such laws. Banning so-called “assault weapons” is a farce, as well as a fraud, because there is no concrete definition of an assault weapon. That is why so many guns have to be specified by name in such bans — and the ones specified to be banned are typically no more danger-
ous than others that are not specified. Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plainlooking gun. One of the dangerous inconsistencies of many, if not most, gun control crusaders is that those who are most zealous to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are often not nearly as concerned about keeping violent criminals behind bars. Leniency toward criminals has long been part of the pattern of gun control zealots on both sides of the Atlantic. When the insatiable desire to crack down on lawabiding citizens with guns is combined with an attitude of leniency toward criminals, it can hardly be surprising when tighter gun control laws are accompanied by rising rates of crime, including murders. (Daily Corinthian columnist Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.)
Boston terror attack more than ‘casual’ terrorism On Monday night, I went before a live television audience and tried to put the Boston terror attack into some perspective. I told the viewers that as an American, I was angry. I said the attack was vile and cowardly, designed to injure innocent people including children. I put forth that the Nazis did that kind of thing. And finally, I said that President Obama made a mistake by using the word “tragedy” to define the attack. While the dictionary defines “tragedy” as “a disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life,” the word is not precise enough to define what happened in Boston. If the bombers are foreigners, the event is an act of war. If the killers are Americans, it is high treason; in committing an act of terror,
Reece Terry
Mark Boehler
publisher rterry@dailycorinthian.com
editor editor@dailycorinthian.com
Willie Walker
Roger Delgado
circulation manager circdirector@dailycorinthian.com
press foreman
you essentially declare war on your own country. There is a difference between detoBill nating bombs O’Reilly that kill and maim innoThe O’Reilly Factor cent people and shooting up a school or movie theater. Both are murderous acts, but only one is politically motivated. And it is the political factor that takes “tragedy” out of the descriptive equation. Obama did not do anything wrong in describing the Boston bombings as a tragedy. But he did not use his pulpit to clearly define the issue. Americans need to know that this country is under attack by a variety of forces from within and without. U.S. authorities have performed brilliantly
in keeping terror attacks on American soil to a minimum, but too many folks do not understand the danger this country is facing. There are fanatics who would kill each and every one of us if they could. That is not tragic; it is real. And we must deal with it. Freedom puts all of us at risk. We are living in a time when just about every security measure is controversial -- from drones to Internet snooping with a warrant. In New York City, liberals rail against the “stop and frisk” police policy designed to control illegal weapons. Never mind that the policy has saved thousands of lives. The zealots don’t like it, and that’s that. Security be damned. Hanging in the New York City office of the ACLU was a sign that read: “We reserve the right to check all bags.” But if the cops want
World Wide Web: www.dailycorinthian.com To Sound Off: E-mail: email: news@dailycorinthian.com Circulation 287-6111 Classified Adv. 287-6147
to check a suspicious bag on the street or in a subway car, get ready for the usual yelping by the ACLU. Obama should bring a sense of urgency to terrorism. At times, he doesn’t even like using the word. His style is cool, while the issue is hot. Americans react emotionally when children are blown up on the streets. Obama’s use of the word “tragedy” is a small thing, and again, he did not do anything wrong. But I want my commander in chief to command. All Americans are under attack. Let’s sound the alarm in very vivid terms. (Daily Corinthian columnist and veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.”)
How to reach us -- extensions:
Newsroom.....................317 Circulation....................301 news@dailycorinthian.com advertising@dailycorinthian. Advertising...................339 Classifieds....................302 com Classad@dailycorinthian.com Bookkeeping.................333
Editorials represent the voice of the Daily Corinthian. Editorial columns, letters to the editor and other articles that appear on this page represent the opinions of the writers and the Daily Corinthian may or may not agree.