Must pursue safest mammogram course
The result of the latest Canadian study brings into question the value of recommending annual mammograms. For those of us whose lives were saved by the mammogram, this news is very unsettling.
Is this a case again where the "all-knowing" male clinician is mightily interpreting a study's finding that mammograms are no longer necessary? Opining mammograms to be dispensable and relegated to File 13 because breast cancer is being more successfully treated is quite onerous. Only a woman can truly understand the physical and emotional effect such a decision would have on her. Shall we just throw out the baby with the bath water?
Advising that all women have a baseline mammogram at age 30 and annual mammograms after age 40 is the safest and smartest road to follow no matter what the studies reveal. The woman is her own advocate and trusting herself to make her own decision to protect her health and life is how she can most effectively do this.
Yearly mammograms do matter.
Linda S. Messick
Minimum-wage laws don't damage jobs
A recent letter included the cliché that minimum wage laws harm low-wage workers.
Many studies by independent economists prove that claim to be false. One study found that a New Jersey minimum wage increase actually increased employment in the state by helping low-wage employers fill vacancies and reduce turnover.
The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of a proposed $10.10 federal minimum wage and found that it would not create unemployment or inflation. According to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, McDonald's could pay the higher minimum wage, not reduce employment, and maintain its current profit level by raising the price of a Big Mac and a shake from $7.19 to $7.23.
A study by Ken Jacobs, the chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, showed that San Francisco's high minimum wage and guaranteed health care benefits did not affect employment in the city, but resulted in 50,000 low-wage workers earning an additional $1.2 billion.
Convicts shouldn't have right to vote
Eric Holder wants to give felons the vote. He thinks convicts, with a history of making the worst decisions possible, would make good voters.
How much more anti-social do you have to be to become disqualified from voting?
This foolishness is more worthy of the Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, not the attorney general of the United States.
Criminals voting makes little sense
The attorney general's campaign to allow criminals to vote caused me to wonder what my favorite author might have said:
"Suppose you were a criminal with the ability to steer our country's policies with your vote. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Phillips 66 fine is chump change
I want to comment about the fine that Phillips 66 has agreed to pay the state of California concerning selenium released into San Pablo Bay at its Rodeo refinery.
The reason they agreed to pay without contest is because it is such a small fine. It's cheaper for them to pay the fine than it is to fix the problem at the refinery. Shouldn't the fines be punitive enough to make the company think twice about releasing toxic metals into San Pablo Bay?
Phillips Oil made $5.4 billion last year. Paying a fine of $6,000 is like a tip on a cup of coffee for them.
How about putting some teeth into the fines so a company from Texas doesn't keep polluting our bay.