Editor, the Advocate:
A recently published letter (“Ship of Fools”) makes a number of alarming and alarmingly wrong assertions. Since correcting them all would take more space than is allowed by the Advocate, I’d like to focus, instead, on two which stood out to me as especially egregious.
The first, “Fools right and left think there will come no reckoning for endlessly spending money that is backed only by their printing press.”
To begin with, literally printing money does not add a cent to the economy; physical notes are “paid for” by drawing down reserve accounts (see “Legal tender status” on the US treasury website). To continue, dollars are backed in a number of ways, the most pertinent being a tax obligation that can only be extinguished in dollars as well all the goods and services in the economy, the only things for which dollars can be exchanged domestically. The former is sometimes referred to as chartalism and goes back to Adam Smith at least in book 2 chapter 2 of Wealth of Nations.
The second, “Fools look to science for answers, yet when science DNA clearly identifies two human genders, they push science aside with constructs to ‘prove’ unlimited gender ‘identities’.”
DNA does no such thing. For starters, sex and gender are not identical. For more, discounting xx and xy karyotypes, there are a variety of others, the most common configurations of which are x, xxy, xyy, and xxxy which amount to literally millions of people across the world. Moreover, karyotype alone is also a poor basis for the determination of biological sex as many cases demonstrate (eg Lydia Fairchild, or any one of the biological/genetic men who have persistent Müllerian duct syndrome which means they have fallopian tubes, uteruses, and sometimes even the upper part of the vagina along with menstruating).
The letter concludes with references to Isaiah 5:20, Jeremiah 16:20, and Romans 1:22; perhaps the author should remember the end of Matthew 5:22 (KJV), “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Perhaps the author should have considered all of this — and more — before submitting his letter.
John Schlembach, Victoria