Michael Sherman should know
Merriam-Webster defines insurrection as “an act or instance of revolt against civil authority or established government”.
A recent letter to the editor plays semantics in defense of the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol Building. The author compares the riot to the BLM protests and argues that people or news sources who use the word insurrection when referring to the violent conspiracy to overthrow the government are the real harm to our freedom.
Wikipedia states: “On January 6, 2021, supporters of President Donald Trump attempted to undo his election loss to Joe Biden by storming the capital in a riot and violent attack on the United States Congress in disrupting the joint session of Congress convened to count the electoral votes to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
He goes on to say that “on January 7, Michael R. Sherman, the acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia said the rioters could be charged with seditious conspiracy or insurrection.”
If the writer wants to convince Michael Sherman and the rest of the world that the attack on the government on January 6 and the attempt to overthrow the presidential election was not an insurrection, he will have to do more than regurgitate Tucker’s hyperbole Carlson.
What does the law have to do with it?
What does the “law” have to do with the location of these low income apartments (Northstar Apartments on North Fargo)? Does this “law” specify that these apartments must be built on the north side of Hanford? Why not the south side?
I don’t think anyone would care much there.
Doesn’t it cost more for land on the north side? It does not seem profitable to waste government money (by “law”) on expensive land. Would you like to have apartments above your swimming pool? Would you like your house to be devalued?
Parents should stop Pan’s vaccine bill
I urge parents to write to Senator Dr. Richard Pan to keep the personal belief exemption for the COVID vaccine for schoolchildren in place. Removing this exemption does not allow parents to make an informed decision about vaccinating our children.
Politicians should step back and consider the potential for harm. While a public health crisis exists for adults over the age of 45 according to the number of COVID deaths on the CDC website (approximately 400,000 per year) and may constitute a looser vaccine assessment for this group of age, the number of COVID deaths for the 0-17 age group (851 over two years) is dramatically different and warrants critical evaluation of new vaccines.
Vaccines against measles and poliomyelitis were compulsory in schools because the diseases mainly affect children, but COVID is a virus that mainly affects the elderly; and even the polio vaccine was not made mandatory in any state until about four years after the first vaccine was approved in 1955 (North Carolina Polio, David J. Koon).
The annual number of COVID deaths in children is similar to the number of influenza deaths per year in this age group; However, the flu vaccine is not mandatory although it has been studied for 80 years. Is it ethical to force a vaccine with a similar disease risk on children that has been studied on them for less than a year?
Recall that the Pfizer vaccine trial on just 3,100 children began in April 2021 and I have only seen small or poor studies regarding the safety of the vaccine for children, specifically related to myocarditis and cycle changes menstrual. Before warrants are issued, our senators could work to fund longer third-party studies regarding mRNA vaccines for children.
Distance learning is ineffective, but it does not justify vaccination mandates for children until long-term safety data is available. Studies have shown that schools can stay open without excessively increasing COVID transmission before vaccines are available. There are no winners in COVID, but parents should not be denied informed consent.