Boycott Chinese Products
There is a national movement building for a three-month boycott of Chinese goods for March through May. If this boycott is successful, it will accomplish three things:
First, it will make participants aware of just how tied we are to Chinese-made goods. In many cases, there will not be affordable alternatives, so participants will have to try to do without until the boycott is over.
Second, the boycott will make stores like Walmart aware of how vulnerable they are to a consumer-driven boycott.
Third, and most important, it will get the attention of our political leaders. They have been very slow in putting any kind of meaningful tariffs or restrictions on goods from China. No company in the U.S. can compete with Chinese companies that pay as low as 25 cents per hour for labor.
Putting tariffs on Chinese goods will likely start a trade war, which could include a refusal from China to loan us any more money. And certainly, the cost of living in the U.S. will go up, as more goods are again manufactured in the U.S. or tariffs are added to the price of Chinese imports. But the longer we wait to take action, the more painful it will be.
Please support this boycott. It's bad enough that China is the largest foreign holder of our debt. If we also continue to give them all of our jobs, we may as well just start learning the Chinese National Anthem.
Middle Ground Needed
I picked up a Memphis Flyer (January 20th issue) while passing through the Memphis airport recently and was entertained by the two opposing letters to the editor. Some of Joe Boone's local references had me at a loss, but I could tell that he is not a Tea Party fan. Then, Lynn Moss' reply to someone who was "Mad As Hell" seemed to balance the page with a volley of anti-liberal examples "to get the facts straight." ("Liberal" comes from "liberty," doesn't it?)
However, she is just as guilty as the writer she is accusing. To say that the March 2010 bullet shot through a window of Eric Cantor's office was from a Democrat or liberal is the same as saying that the Tucson gunman was Republican or Tea Party follower. Incredible!
What's unfortunate is that there was no room left on the page for a voice of reason to bring the two extremes together. Paul's words from First Corinthians 1:10 would fit nicely here. Maybe they should be read before every session of Congress.
In response to Randy Haspel's Rant in the January 20th issue, I have to wonder just which of the Bill of Rights he sees as having "evolved" to embrace newer technology and which he wants to remain stuck in the 18th century.
Mass communication during the American Revolution went only as quickly as a man on a fast horse, yet the First Amendment is used to protect speech made over the Internet, radio, and television. Who is to say that advances in firearms technology should not also be protected? Furthermore, I do not see how more gun control laws would have stopped the shooter in Tucson from shooting a peaceful gathering of people to see their congresswoman. He had passed a federally mandated background check, and a waiting period would not have stopped him, since he had purchased the firearm long before carrying out his plan.
He possibly could have been stopped if the school which expelled him had told law enforcement about their concerns for his mental health so that he could be flagged against the possibility of his buying a firearm. But this was not done, nor did any of the people who'd gotten on television to express their concerns about him do anything to get him any mental health treatment before he committed the shootings.
Just what hoops should a law-abiding U.S. citizen have to jump through in order to exercise any of their guaranteed rights? Do you think the rhetoric which some people blame for the shooting could have been toned down if there had been a waiting period on all talk-show hosts? Am I the only who's noticed reports about how crime is being reduced, as well as the laments about gun ownership increasing? If gun ownership is going up and crime is going down, that should show that increased firearms sales are not automatically the root cause of criminal activity.
Memphis Flyer encourages reader response. Send mail to: Letters to the Editor, POB 1738, Memphis, TN 38101. Or send us e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. All responses must include name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters should be no longer than 250 word
One of the primary debating points that emerged during the 2012 presidential campaign was that of "takers versus makers." GOP candidate Mitt Romney hammered the point repeatedly to the electorate — that most of those who were backing President Obama in his reelection were takers, living off the efforts of the makers: the noble, hard-working Americans seeking only the freedom to earn a living and provide jobs for all ...