How sweet it is
The Health & Fitness column “Shoes are key when running,” (Sports, Sunday) unfortunately mischaracterizes high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) by suggesting that it is a unique contributor to diabetes.
The findings of the researchers at Rutgers University referenced in the column appear to diverge from a considerable body of published scientific research finding HFCS both safe and no different from other common sweeteners such as sugar and honey.
Recent scientific studies have shown that the human body appears to metabolize HFCS and sugar in much the same way. Like sugar, honey and some fruit juices, HFCS contains almost equal portions of fructose and glucose. Both sugar and HFCS contain 4 calories per gram.
Many parts of the world, including Australia, Mexico and Europe, have rising rates of obesity and diabetes despite having limited or no HFCS in their foods and beverages, which supports findings by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Diabetes Association that the primary causes of diabetes are obesity, advancing age and heredity. Diabetes is a complicated problem — one that cannot be blamed on a sole ingredient or component of the American diet.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long recognized that HFCS is safe. In 1983, the FDA listed HFCS as “generally recognized as safe” for use in food and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996 after thorough review.
Corn Refiners Association
The Greek campaign
In response to Ali F. Sevin’s letter about the Armenian genocide issue (Letters, Monday), let me note that there is no shortage of evidence about the genocide, death marches and mass killings of Asia Minor Greeks by both the Young Turks and their Kemalist successors. Thea Halo’s “Not Even My Name,” published in 2000, recounts personal details about the genocide of the Pontian Greeks.
Accounts of the mass killings of Asia Minor Greeks are attested to by American eyewitness Herbert Adam Gibbons, who reported them in his articles in the Christian Science Monitor. As early as 1914, the Sublime Porte in Constantinople ordered the authorities in Smyrna to begin uprooting Greeks living among the Asia Minor coast, and as late as 1922, following the Kemalist conquest of Smyrna, Gen. Noureddine Pasha ordered Turks to kill “four or five Greeks” each.
The Greek Orthodox Church attested to the slaughter and killings of Greek and Armenian Christians as the Ecumenical Patriarchate closed churches to protest the Turkish atrocities during World War I. Archbishop Chrysanthos of Trebizond made public appeals for relief to the Western powers to aid his flock who were being massacred. Archbishop Chrysostom of Smyrna was slaughtered by Islamic mobs in retaliation for his public opposition to the continued misrule of the Turks in Asia Minor.
George Horton, an American official with three decades of experience in the Ottoman Empire and impeccable knowledge and contact with all communities and leaders, published his memoirs and letters to the State Department that recalled the genocidal policies of the Turks. Numerous reports from the New York Times refer to the aim of the Kemalists against the Greeks in Asia Minor as being one of “extermination.”
Finally, the Greek campaign in Asia Minor was not one of conquest, but of liberation. The Ottoman Empire had effectively ceased to exist as a state. Published works by relief workers who were on the scene in Asia Minor, such as Edward Hale Bierstadt, attest to the claims of Greece in Asia Minor, as did prominent American officials such as the late Ambassador Henry Morgenthau.
THEODORE G. KARAKOSTAS
Ignorance — before and after school
Laura Ingraham’s book excerpt (“Bad ‘grammer,’ ” Op-Ed, Thursday) illuminates the educational degeneracy marching across the scholastic landscape. Having once taught at the university and secondary levels, I have watched schooling replace education and seen the concomitant decline in logic and historical knowledge. The consequence has been an eruption of hatred against the glory of a Western world whose ethical and scientific contributions have improved the lot of the world.
Adding to the twaddle revealed by Miss Ingraham is the caustic purge of Christian references from the calendar by the infantile Marxists who run the schools and cultural institutions. The terms A.D. and B.C. are forbidden, and the anti-Christian C.E. and B.C.E. appear in their place. This is rationalized as being “sensitive” or “multicultural” or any of a dozen other excuses to denigrate the culture. One is left wondering how they define the “common era.” Perhaps they would be more comfortable using the calendar of the French Revolution, which even abolished the common names of the days.
As for the fraternity of the perpetually offended, by attacking the calendar, they reveal their true antipathy to a Western civilization whose root is the Catholic Church (as well as to any other expression of Christendom). Simultaneously, they bare their own ignorance of the foundation of the magnificent heritage bequeathed to them, and to us.
The Mukasey endorsement
The Washington Times has come out quickly and strongly in favor of President Bush’s nomination of Michael B. Mukasey for attorney general, proclaiming, “The Senate should schedule hearings at once and confirm him quickly” (“Mukasey for attorney general,” Editorial, yesterday).
The endorsement brought to mind the following words: “He has the experience, the integrity and the dedication to our Constitution that the job demands. He is committed to faithfully executing the laws of our country… He is an excellent choice.” This paean appeared on the Op-Ed pages of The Washington Times Nov. 15, 2004, as authored by Theodore B. Olson. The “he” in question was Alberto Gonzales.
Based on the execrable performance by Mr. Gonzales while serving as attorney general, one can only hope the Senate will require more than a laudatory editorial before confirming yet another Bush nominee as the “people’s lawyer.”
A flimsy argument
The editorial “NAFTA and our borders” (Saturday) disparages the Senate’s decision to reject funding for a pilot program that would give Mexican trucks freer access to U.S. roadways as reneging on U.S. commitments to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Starting with the assumption that anything supported by Democrats and organized labor must be bad, the editorial ignores other legitimate concerns related to the operation of Mexican trucks. Consider: driver fatigue, adequacy of driver background checks (performed — if at all — by the corrupt Mexican government) and the likelihood of drug-cartel infiltration of the Mexican trucking industry.
Transportation inspector general requirements to check every Mexican vehicle notwithstanding, the Bush administration’s track record when it comes to oversight and enforcement is abysmal: Think dangerous Chinese-made toys and the U.S. immigration agency’s continuing “catch and release” policy on criminal aliens. It strains credulity to believe the administration’s assurances mean anything. Considering the Mexican government’s flouting of our immigration and other laws, using U.S. obligations under NAFTA as a pretext for allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. roads is a flimsy argument at best.