January 15, 2008 07:37 am Reinstate U.S. hemp industry Proponents of a U.S. hemp industry have been encouraged by DNA evidence of the difference between industrial hemp and its cousin, marijuana. Farmers always have interest in something that will generate cash. A University of Minnesota study has obliterated the thinking that a hemp industry would hurt efforts to stop the drug trade. Exit drug issue; enter capitalist issue. There are compelling reasons to reintroduce industrial hemp as a crop in this country. Our agricultural market is in trouble. Much land is not used to its full potential. Ecologically sound hemp requires no pesticides or herbicides, is a proven soil regenerator and stacks up well against other crops in Estimated Value Per Acre. Estimates from the N.H. Department of Agriculture and the North American Hemp Council (1999) put hemp at $450 EVPA, ahead of hay at $150, soybeans at $170, corn at $200, and cotton at $357. These figures tell us we are making a grave mistake in not allowing a domestic hemp industry to flower. Farmers could realize a using of all nature's resources in the constant battle to keep land productive. Entrepreneurs could establish a paper industry or a hemp-processing plant. Out bioregion could have industry that returns proceeds to nature as well as men. Given the genetic evidence of hemp's difference from its psychoactive sibling, there is no reason, save ignorance, why there cannot be a thriving, productive domestic hemp industry in favor of the present expensive importation of anything hemp. Hemp's value lies in diversity, from healthy food to animal bedding, from building material to plastics, from soaps to clothing. Hemp could solve all paper problems, thereby saving valuable trees. Hemp, in partnership with other biomass, could solve fuel and energy problems. Legislators, acknowledging the value in the return, must be prodded to lead the way. Earl Callahan New Berlin Israel set apart, chosen by God In response to Mr. Nissenbaum's letter: Anti-Semitism is not the work of the Lord, Israel is "the apple of his eye." (Deuteronomy 32:10; Zechariah 2:8). The Lord promised Abraham: "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all the peoples on the earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:2-3). Israel is chosen and set apart by the Lord. (Deuteronomy 7-6; 12:2). The Jews "have been entrusted with the very words of God." (Romans 3:2). "Theirs is the adoption as sons, their the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ ..." (Romans 9:4-5). Yeshua was born into the tribe of Judah and the lineage of King David. As to his human nature, Jesus was a Jew. We gentiles owe the Jewish people a huge debt of gratitude, not only for the spiritual blessing, but also for the numerous material blessings they have contributed to the fields of medicine, science, technology, literature and the arts. Tragically, God's chosen people have been persecuted throughout the centuries. Those who wrongly treat the Jewish people using, "the name of Christ" or, "the work of the Lord" to justify their cause neither know the Lord, nor do they know his word. A new "Hitler" has appeared on the world scene. His country is developing nuclear capabilities. He has said the Holocaust is a "myth" and has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." (The Daily Star, Dec. 15, 2005). Do you know who he is? Will you bless Israel or curse Israel? Louise Ransford Bloomville Hillary using sexism as excuse There have been claims that comments during recent presidential debates have been fueled by discrimination of sex, rather than party propositions. Hillary Clinton, or her representatives, have no right to even suggest an idea. Clinton should be well-prepared in politics, yet she cannot stand a few simple arguments. She should know the stress brought by her campaign and shouldn't expect treatment different than that of any other candidate. The American people seem to either be unsure about the idea of a lady president, or in full support. Doesn't anyone realize that maybe placing a woman at the highest position in our government is moving a little too fast? Radicals see this as necessary to avoid a sexist government. If our government wasn't at least remotely sexist, this wouldn't be an issue at all. I undoubtedly agree that it is time for women to have their place in all areas of American economy. With that said, maybe we should encourage women to participate in the government system as a whole, rather than just putting the face of a woman in high office. If protesters are going to huff and puff about sexist issues, they should at least create more-reachable goals. Equality for all people came in America over time. Just like evolution, progress cannot happen overnight. Taking all of this into consideration, if Hillary's intention really is to abolish sexism in our government, I'd say her approach toward doing so is wrong. Lacey Hughes Walton Hughes is a senior at Walton Central School. Hughes and other students have written letters to the editor as part of Gary Backus' Economics and Government class.
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.